Support NeoGAF

[natjjohn]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.
Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.
American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.

“We were astonished, appalled and also saddened,” said Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action, who has attended meetings of the assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization, since the late 1980s.

“What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the U.S. holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on best way to protect infant and young child health,” she said.

In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.

In talks to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Americans have been pushing for language that would limit the ability of Canada, Mexico and the United States to put warning labels on junk food and sugary beverages, according to a draft of the proposal reviewed by The New York Times.

During the same Geneva meeting where the breast-feeding resolution was debated, the United States succeeded in removing statements supporting soda taxes from a document that advises countries grappling with soaring rates of obesity.
The Americans also sought, unsuccessfully, to thwart a W.H.O. effort aimed at helping poor countries obtain access to lifesaving medicines. Washington, supporting the pharmaceutical industry, has long resisted calls to modify patent laws as a way of increasing drug availability in the developing world, but health advocates say the Trump administration has ratcheted up its opposition to such efforts.

Odd thing to go so hard over (breastfeeding long associated healthier babies), but think another example where the well-being of the general population is not a high priority for this administration. Also disturbing that Russia had to put the US in its place, and that we obeyed.

Included some other choice quotes as just odd things to go hard over if concerned with the health/well-being of the population vs corporate profits of specific industries.

 

[King of Foxes]

Is it not common knowledge that a mothers milk is the best? Sure she needs to eat healthy and all, or is it because of the large % of obese people in America that they recommend formula?

 

[nemiroff]

It is important to maximize the promotion of breastfeeding, the important health benefits for children are obviously there. With that said, I bet there are two sides to this NYT story.

 

[iamblades]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html











Odd thing to go so hard over (breastfeeding long associated healthier babies), but think another example where the well-being of the general population is not a high priority for this administration. Also disturbing that Russia had to put the US in its place, and that we obeyed.

Included some other choice quotes as just odd things to go hard over if concerned with the health/well-being of the population vs corporate profits of specific industries.

From what I understand of the science, this is a perfectly reasonable position. Many of the studies on breastfeeding have issues with confounding variables. The consensus seems to be that there is not a giant difference, certainly not enough of a difference to do things to shame or pressure women who are unable to breastfeed.

 

[Fox Mulder]

There's profit in selling formula though.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

Why do we need laws for or against this? Why do mothers need the government up in their baby bottles? Honest question.

 

[cryptoadam]

In talks to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Americans have been pushing for language that would limit the ability of Canada, Mexico and the United States to put warning labels on junk food and sugary beverages, according to a draft of the proposal reviewed by The New York Times.

During the same Geneva meeting where the breast-feeding resolution was debated, the United States succeeded in removing statements supporting soda taxes from a document that advises countries grappling with soaring rates of obesity.

F off with that.

North America is already fat as hell and nobody wants to do anything about it.

The USA has an obesity epidemic and Canada and Mexico are right there with it. If American's want to continue killing themselves with food then go ahead but don't force that crap on us.

 

[Alx]

Why do we need laws for or against this? Why do mothers need the government up in their baby bottles? Honest question.

Because milk companies are promoting their own products, trying to convince mothers that their stuff is better. Hence why governments should set things straight. It's in the OP :

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Why do we need laws for or against this? Why do mothers need the government up in their baby bottles? Honest question.

Declarations of fact help fight marketing of products.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

Because milk companies are promoting their own products, trying to convince mothers that their stuff is better. Hence why governments should set things straight. It's in the OP :

I am sure in some cases it is. In some cases it isn't. Doctors and scientists should be setting people straight.

 

[Alx]

I'm pretty sure the "decades of research" were handled by doctors and scientists. Now education and communication is not only on them.

 

[rokkerkory]

I am sure the lobbies had nothing to do with this.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

Declarations of fact help fight marketing of products.

Define fact. Do we have an epidemic of dead babies from formula? Do we have studies to show how a child on formula is disadvantaged? Formula prices will only go up if they are not allowed to market their product correctly and that hurts more than helps.

Is breast milk always at a nutritional constant? Is a mother always in the best possible health for feeding?

I'm pretty sure the "decades of research" were handled by doctors and scientists. Now education and communication is not only on them.

Article does say the scientists don't do double blind so I am not sure we can trust that research. Be honest here.

I have only glanced over the Lancet summary but it makes some pretty bold claims of "maybe". I will dig into the study when I'm not on my shitty iPad 3. However, this sounds to me like bias research. The other side of the Lobby coin.

Not that I oppose breast feeding and care about the bottom line of the formula companies. But the claims are huge and it sounds to me like governments want to push welfare programs instead of letting companies make money in poor countries and dangle a carrot of reducing healthcare costs for rich countries. The age old conundrum of systems needing balance and how we approach the problem.

 

[Atrus]

It was resolved when Russia stepped in and scared the Americans off so its not a big issue in the end.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Define fact. Do we have an epidemic of dead babies from formula? Do we have studies to show how a child on formula is disadvantaged? Formula prices will only go up if they are not allowed to market their product correctly and that hurts more than helps.

This isn't a "don't market formulas" thing. It's a "don't affirm that breast milk is good" thing.

"define fact" lol

 

[Sakura Doritos]

This isn't a "don't market formulas" thing. It's a "don't affirm that breast milk is good" thing.

"define fact" lol

You are projecting a narrative I just don't see from the facts. The Facts are not brought in that article. The only fact is how shittily the US government handled it. Which is not what my original question addressed. If you are going to quote me don't assume the facts are self evident when they are not.

The article reads like commentary not news.

Edit: just to be clear, I don't care about the marketing fight I want to know the WHY they can make the argument they made when on the surface their argument is flimsy and both sides had lobbyists there.

 

[Platinumstorm]

Define fact. Do we have an epidemic of dead babies from formula? Do we have studies to show how a child on formula is disadvantaged? Formula prices will only go up if they are not allowed to market their product correctly and that hurts more than helps.

Is breast milk always at a nutritional constant? Is a mother always in the best possible health for feeding?

Article does say the scientists don't do double blind so I am not sure we can trust that research. Be honest here.

I have only glanced over the Lancet summary but it makes some pretty bold claims of "maybe". I will dig into the study when I'm not on my shitty iPad 3. However, this sounds to me like bias research. The other side of the Lobby coin.

Not that I oppose breast feeding and care about the bottom line of the formula companies. But the claims are huge and it sounds to me like governments want to push welfare programs instead of letting companies make money in poor countries and dangle a carrot of reducing healthcare costs for rich countries. The age old conundrum of systems needing balance and how we approach the problem.

I am a healthcare provider. I will not go find any sort of study, if you're the skeptic then you need to find the studies that disprove the plethora of benefits demonstrated over the years by studies. Breast milk is certainly not a nutritional constant, nor is its production even constant, but the fact that it can help the baby's immune system, by itself, makes it superior to formulas. Can babies get by with formula? Yes. Is there a time and place for when supplemental formula is necessary for a baby's development? Yes. However, by and large breast milk is superior to formula.

Additionally, there is no stigma for women who formula feed their babies.

It's amazing that this became an issue.

You want to know why being "extremely proud" of the U.S. is at the lowest point in poll history? It's because we're a damned plutocracy. Repeal Citizens United.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

But baby formula is convenient, therefore trying to push the agenda that breastmilk is healthier is just oppressing women.

In all seriousness, there are millions of mothers using WIC and welfare to pay for their child's nutrition. Nothing wrong with that at all assuming the food is good. But it isn't. It's low-grade formula (you CAN get better stuff), peanut-butter, and grain-based cereal. Plus, many hospitals will send new mothers home with a few diapers and a bunch of free formula. My wife and I have gone through this three times and they puuuuush formula on you. And yet, raising our kids in a non-single-parent home allows her to best take care of the kid's milk and for me to make the money. It's almost like... the standard family structure has some benefits, huh?

There's another massive side to formula: much of it is either soy-based or uses dairy by-products. Both of those industries have huge lobbying capabilities.

Moms need to step up and either devote the time to properly nourish their children (which will absolutely diminish their own career perspectives) or demand better-quality formula from the companies that are pushing this.

 

[Greedings]

Additionally, there is no stigma for women who formula feed their babies.

I agreed with everything you said, but this isn't really true. I've heard multiple cases where women who struggle with breast feeding are berated and made to feel worthless by healthcare professionals.
From my very limited knowledge, I have seen some preliminary studies linking this kind of treatment to the development of postnatal depression.

Note: this was in the UK. Not the USA.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

I am a healthcare provider. I will not go find any sort of study, if you're the skeptic then you need to find the studies that disprove the plethora of benefits demonstrated over the years by studies. Breast milk is certainly not a nutritional constant, nor is its production even constant, but the fact that it can help the baby's immune system, by itself, makes it superior to formulas. Can babies get by with formula? Yes. Is there a time and place for when supplemental formula is necessary for a baby's development? Yes. However, by and large breast milk is superior to formula.

Additionally, there is no stigma for women who formula feed their babies.

It's amazing that this became an issue.

You want to know why being "extremely proud" of the U.S. is at the lowest point in poll history? It's because we're a damned plutocracy. Repeal Citizens United.

I am not a skeptic that breast milk is better. I am asking the question why the government should be involved. If you already have labels that require ingredients and have false advertisement laws already then why do we need much more than that? Why do we need more government interactions in this space?

Is my question that absurd?

 

[Phoenix RISING]

After reading the article, it's funny that the Russians called out America on being a bully.

This is a continuation of Obama-era GOP tactics to resist anything they didn't suggest first. Now that they've won the US, they are deploying this strategy on a global scale.

We may never fully repair diplomatic relations when one presidency instantly undoes the policies established by a former president.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

You are projecting a narrative I just don't see from the facts. The Facts are not brought in that article. The only fact is how shittily the US government handled it. Which is not what my original question addressed. If you are going to quote me don't assume the facts are self evident when they are not.

The article reads like commentary not news.

Edit: just to be clear, I don't care about the marketing fight I want to know the WHY they can make the argument they made when on the surface their argument is flimsy and both sides had lobbyists there.

Commentary?

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

I'm sorry I'm "projecting" the "narrative" of fucking reality.

To your original question. Government entities need to be involved in affirming facts, because money and marketing has a higher propensity to reach people.

And these aren't laws, these are resolutions.

Why do we need laws for or against this? Why do mothers need the government up in their baby bottles? Honest question.

 

[Ke0]

How anyone can be against this is nuts, corporations run the US.

 

[michaelius]

Because milk companies are promoting their own products, trying to convince mothers that their stuff is better. Hence why governments should set things straight. It's in the OP :

You don't have any laws against lying in advertisements ?

In here advertising for health products is strictly controlled and you can't use doctors in ads (ads saying I'm doctor x and suggest taking product y for your health are banned for example)

 

[bucyou]

You don't have any laws against lying in advertisements ?

In here advertising for health products is strictly controlled and you can't use doctors in ads (ads saying I'm doctor x and suggest taking product y for your health are banned for example)

formula companies just send coupons as advertisements, they do their fucked up lying via lobbying

 

[rbanke]

I don't know what kind of mother would give their kids breastmilk instead of Brawndo.

 

[American]

Titty-milk is best-milk, even if you're a man in your 30's

 

[Wulfric]

Anything for the good of Nestle, err, citizens I mean.

 

[Gander]

I'm a progressive for sure but I'm a bit of old fashioned person when it comes to this. The media has been hard at work over the last decade trying to normalize the image of two men kissing on TV but the most natural human behavior a mother breastfeeding her child in public is obscene?

Fellow progressives set me straight, what am I missing that this seems wrong to me?

 

[Sakura Doritos]

Commentary?

The article reads like commentary to me. There are a lot of issues besides opposition to breast feeding in that is being conflated with this issue. Like the WHA fast track to medicine... which is encroaching on US patent laws. Whether or not I agree with the idea of getting medicine out faster I see this as an article that is trying to make a case for socialized medicine and law outside our legal system. That case is to build up a narrative that the US government (c'mon Trump cause its the NYT) hates people and loves money. Oh... and wants everyone fat cause soda because NAFTA. Oh... and now we want to give our babies the lowest quality of life because money.

From the article, "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. "

So the actual study they linked to is a meta-analysis of pre-existing work. It may be 100% right. It may have a lot wrong with it. I don't know. That is a lot of maybe's for me to blindly trust an article to inform my opinion.

I'm sorry I'm "projecting" the "narrative" of fucking reality.

But here is your fucking reality. It is mine too!

In the US it is mandated to put ingredients on the labels.

It is illegal to falsely sell something as something it is not.

I pay taxes and lots of it.

Education and affirming facts of this subject should already be taking place in the middle and high schools in Biology and Life Science classes. The school I am already paying for.

Resolutions. Laws. It all rings $$$ to me the tax payer.

If the resolution costs 0 US tax dollars then what the fuck ever.

 

[Wulfric]

I'm a progressive for sure but I'm a bit of old fashioned person when it comes to this. The media has been hard at work over the last decade trying to normalize the image of two men kissing on TV but the most natural human behavior a mother breastfeeding her child in public is obscene?

Fellow progressives set me straight, what am I missing that this seems wrong to me?

I think it's the threatening sanctions for simply endorsing breastfeeding is what is bothering people.

 

[Super Mario]

These sort of discussions generally lead to the same questions: at which point do we draw the line and who defines the vision of good? Obviously, children evolved on breast milk. What did they eat after that? What nutrition do they "miss out on" at that point? What should we recommend, mandate, etc? What is the quantifiable difference?

The less government involvement, the better.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

I think it's the threatening sanctions for simply endorsing breastfeeding is what is bothering people.

That is not what happened though, "American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children. "

This goes to what DunDunDunpachi said earlier with his children. So there is pushback on the current systems in place that promote formula. I completely acknowledge that btw. All my brothers were raised on wic provided similac. I couldn't touch the stuff. I had to be fed on goats milk cause my mom couldn't feed.

The problem I have with the article in general is the language and rhetoric. They are making it out like the US is working for the formula companies without any regard for this passage:

“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.

If you read that quote on its face value it is pretty reasonable position.

The interesting component is why we just didn't say, "Sure, pass all you want but if you think we're going to abide by it go fuck yourselves." There has to be something more to it we're missing here.

 

[rokkerkory]

Hey look good guy Russia!!

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

These sort of discussions generally lead to the same questions: at which point do we draw the line and who defines the vision of good? Obviously, children evolved on breast milk. What did they eat after that? What nutrition do they "miss out on" at that point? What should we recommend, mandate, etc? What is the quantifiable difference?

The less government involvement, the better.

You skipped the step where government agencies have been set up to look into all those ?s you posited.

but less government rabble rabble.

What a sad sad world that people are afraid of science and research. This is what pruit and devos and tillerson were put in place to do.

And ignorant people eat it the fuck up.

 

[greyshark]

Additionally, there is no stigma for women who formula feed their babies.

I agreed with everything you said, but this isn't really true. I've heard multiple cases where women who struggle with breast feeding are berated and made to feel worthless by healthcare professionals.
From my very limited knowledge, I have seen some preliminary studies linking this kind of treatment to the development of postnatal depression.

Note: this was in the UK. Not the USA.

In the US here - there absolutely is a stigma related to mothers who formula feed. I don't think there's any real argument against breast milk being superior to formula, but I also believe babies are just fine even if they are exclusively formula fed. Mothers have it hard enough trying to take care of newborns, adding unnecessary guilt if they can't breast feed for whatever reason is not right IMO.

 

[RokkanStoned]

I actually have no problem with this. Especially considering the US' position, it's not surprising that they want to push back against WHO and others pushing for them to promote breastfeeding and possibly regulate in regards to it. "It's just a resolution" isn't an excuse, that's promoting resolutions as empty promises and makes standing behind them pointless. It's also a sensitive topic, where I can give a good idea of where it leads to, since Norway have for long pushed breastfeeding hard. For a lot of women the pressure to breastfeed has caused a lot of anxiety and fear in meeting their physician/nurse practitioner in Norway (They will literally drag you through hell to breastfeed, even if you have a hard time producing milk), or problems with their spouse or self-guilt due to pressure from society at large (more specifically the media).
My wife stopped producing milk at a point and we started depending on formula to make up for the lack of breast milk production, but to avoid the enormous pressure in regards breastfeeding from the nurse practitioner at the child health clinic, she just lied and said she was still breastfeeding.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

It's just a resolution" isn't an excuse, that's promoting resolutions as empty promises and makes standing behind them pointless.

Resolutions are a base level to build upon.

fear in meeting their physician/nurse practitioner in Norway (They will literally drag you through hell to breastfeed, even if you have a hard time producing milk)

Proof of this?

My wife stopped producing milk at a point and we started depending on formula to make up for the lack of breast milk production, but to avoid the enormous pressure in regards breastfeeding from the nurse practitioner at the child health clinic, she just lied and said she was still breastfeeding.

..... um what

 

[greyshark]

..... um what

Do you not believe a real stigma exists around breastfeeding? I don't find his story difficult to believe or follow. Not wanting to admit you don't breastfeed to your doctor is something I could easily see someone do.

 

[RokkanStoned]

Resolutions are a base level to build upon.

If it's a base level to build upon, then already at that point there's obvious ideological differences that makes rejecting them pretty simple. There's literally no point caring about the opposition to this, unless you believe society should be ruled at an aggregate level and not by principles.

Proof of this?

Are you from Norway? If not, you'll have to suffice with these, since it's a Norwegian issue:
https://sykepleien.no/forskning/2003/09/ammepress-og-darlig-samvittighet
https://www.vg.no/annonsorinnhold/familieliv/rema1000/491-ammesak-1-jordmor-alle-kan-fa-til-a-amme
https://www.vg.no/forbruker/helse/i/pJdjR/jordmorleder-advarer-mot-ammepress
https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/kvelende-ammemas/63526089
https://forskning.no/2008/02/vil-dempe-ammepress (literally a specialist saying the benefits of breastfeeding are overrated)

The first is the biggest norwegian nursing site and VG is the biggest newspaper. Dagbladet is the other big newspaper and "forskning.no" is the big research website.

There's been a whole debate with it and I can also add the numerous anecdotes I've heard from my wife of fellow mothers who've felt the pressure.

..... um what

It's simple (I can't even understand the "... um what", it literally says so in the text), the nurse you have at the child health clinic will literally pull you through a lot of a lot of shit, even if you are unable to produce breast milk (which is the people experiencing the brunt force of this pressure) thinking you're just not trying hard enough. It's literally not worth it to say you're still breastfeeding, because all you'll have is a lot of guilt and pressure to produce from the child health nurse (and possibly a report in regard to your care of your child). You'll see the same with natural birth, my daughter and wife was put through a ridiculous long birth at over 2 weeks past the due date and there was a definite danger of something going wrong.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Do you not believe a real stigma exists around breastfeeding? I don't find his story difficult to believe or follow. Not wanting to admit you don't breastfeed to your doctor is something I could easily see someone do.

I know there's a stigma around breastfeeding, that quote isn't about breastfeeding in public.

If it's a base level to build upon, then already at that point there's obvious ideological differences that makes rejecting them pretty simple. There's literally no point caring about the opposition to this, unless you believe society should be ruled at an aggregate level and not by principles.

What's the point of not affirming accepted practices if not to say you don't agree with them?

Are you from Norway? If not, you'll have to suffice with these, since it's a Norwegian issue:
https://sykepleien.no/forskning/2003/09/ammepress-og-darlig-samvittighet
https://www.vg.no/annonsorinnhold/familieliv/rema1000/491-ammesak-1-jordmor-alle-kan-fa-til-a-amme
https://www.vg.no/forbruker/helse/i/pJdjR/jordmorleder-advarer-mot-ammepress
https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/kvelende-ammemas/63526089
https://forskning.no/2008/02/vil-dempe-ammepress (literally a specialist saying the benefits of breastfeeding are overrated)

The first is the biggest norwegian nursing site and VG is the biggest newspaper. Dagbladet is the other big newspaper and "forskning.no" is the big research website.

There's been a whole debate with it and I can also add the numerous anecdotes I've heard from my wife of fellow mothers who've felt the pressure.


Those are all in foreign language and the google translate versions do not indicate anything to what you aluded to "dragging to hell to breast feed".

It's simple (I can't even understand the "... um what", it literally says so in the text), the nurse you have at the child health clinic will literally pull you through a lot of a lot of shit, even if you are unable to produce breast milk (which is the people experiencing the brunt force of this pressure) thinking you're just not trying hard enough. It's literally not worth it to say you're still breastfeeding, because all you'll have is a lot of guilt and pressure to produce from the child health nurse (and possibly a report in regard to your care of your child). You'll see the same with natural birth, my daughter and wife was put through a ridiculous long birth at over 2 weeks past the due date and there was a definite danger of something going wrong.

Why does your wife or you feel the need to lie to your general practitioner about your medical issues?

 

[greyshark]

I know there's a stigma around breastfeeding, that quote isn't about breastfeeding in public.

Why does your wife or you feel the need to lie to your general practitioner about your medical issues?

The stigma I am talking about is not breastfeeding in public, but the demeaning of women who can't/won't breastfeed as "lesser" mothers than ones who can. That is a real issue that could cause some to do things like lie to their GP about it.

 

[RokkanStoned]

What's the point of not affirming accepted practices if not to say you don't agree with them?

Let's see, from a right-wing point of view: "government has no function to pressure individuals in the US". "The government shouldn't take a standpoint on this". "This isn't a function of the government, waste of money". There are so many ways that it's a totally understandable thing that you don't "affirm accepted practices" or try to push towards them.

Those are all in foreign language and the google translate versions do not indicate anything to what you aluded to "dragging to hell to breast feed".

Are you kidding me? "Uhm, those are foreign, why are you linking to foreign data when talking about a specific issue in a foreign country?" Google translate, lol? I literally spoke about a Norwegian issue, since we're pretty adamant about pushing breastfeeding, specially asked whether you were from Norway since you inquired in the issue, then you're trying to act surprised that the sources are Norwegian?

Why does your wife or you feel the need to lie to your general practitioner about your medical issues?

Because general practitioners in the situation with mother and child, and in regards to the pressure from a highly centralized healthcare directive and professional distance, will literally insist that you should be capable of producing milk, even if you can't (you're literally rolling dices whether you'll have a physician who'll be more relaxed with your inability to produce enough breast milk). That's the hysteria you get with the breastfeeding push, "why won't you do what's right for the child?". A good comparison would be a nutritional hard push in the US, where everything in regard to your parenthood would be judged in regards to nutrition (imagine reporting this to your general practitioner, and that it would be a judgement of you as a "parent", you'd certainly do a few lies here and there). Healthcare in Norway is based around the communication between the patient and the physician, a sort of dialogue (a lot of why people from Poland have low faith in the Norwegian healthcare system). In cases of breastfeeding that is different, since you have the physician who's there for both the mother and the child and have a hard professional pressure to promote breastfeeding. This really hits women who have trouble breastfeeding, where you'll whole life will be focused around breastfeeding for a long time, even if you can produce it, they'll end up forcing you through numerous attempts before they acknowledge that you actually aren't physically able to produce milk. It's ridiculous and has been a heated debate. That's what happens when you push for something as a principle and exert force behind it or pressure. The force is multifaceted, being either pressure from government by their satellites, the general practitioners or the child health nurse practitioners where you have to meet up at certain time intervals, or from fellow mothers who profess "thou shallst breastfeed" or husbands not understanding your issue and lastly the media.

More, the consequences of pressure to breastfeed:
The University of Oslo (biggest university in Norway, and "forskning" means research in case you're wondering): https://www.sv.uio.no/psi/forskning/aktuelt/aktuelle-saker/2012/silje-haga.html

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Are you kidding me? "Uhm, those are foreign, why are you linking to foreign data when talking about a specific issue in a foreign country?" Google translate, lol? I literally spoke about a Norwegian issue, since we're pretty adamant about pushing breastfeeding, specially asked whether you were from Norway since you inquired in the issue, then you're trying to act surprised that the sources are Norwegian?

There was no "why" in my comment. You linked to things, I tried my best to read them through google translate (lol?) None of them indicated what you implied about being "dragged to hell"

Let's see, from a right-wing point of view: "government has no function to pressure individuals in the US". "The government shouldn't take a standpoint on this". "This isn't a function of the government, waste of money". There are so many ways that it's a totally understandable thing that you don't "affirm accepted practices" or try to push towards them.

Affirmations, resolutions, and treaties are not rules of law and forceable actions.

 

[RokkanStoned]

There was no "why" in my comment. You linked to things, I tried my best to read them through google translate (lol?) None of them indicated what you implied about being "dragged to hell"

You're asking why quantitative research and issues of "pressure to breastfeed" isn't showing "dragged to hell"? That's because that's an issue for qualitative research. That's where you find the qualitative data, retelling experiences with the system. It's easy to point out that this isn't an issue that's easy to approach and the issue is felt by even feminists, who also see the trouble with the pressures of breastfeeding. (These are all big norwegian newspapers btw, and again, it's an actual phenomenon)
https://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/nei...naering-men-om-gode-og-darlige-modre/60196074
https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/kvelende-ammemas/63526089
https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/K3zME/Ammepress-gir-depresjoner
https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/--flte-meg-som-verdens-verste-mor/2585974.html
https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/21gvx/--Nybakte-modre-ma-fa-fred

You also have the exaggerations of breastfeeding as well being adressed:
https://forskning.no/svangerskap-ntnu-hormoner/amming-ikke-sa-sunt-som-vi-tror/875491

Also, no, google translate isn't an alternative way to read articles (do you really go around google translating things in foreign languages? Languages that require a contextual understanding of sentence structure and semantics? I'm not translating mangas in google translate to understand the context of the raws, because that just doesn't work. I might get a gist, but certainly it's no replacement.

Affirmations, resolutions, and treaties are not rules of law and forceable actions.

If they are not enforceable, then they are pointless, empty gestures, adding possible expenses to the state. No point spending any time caring for such things. They do however tend to preclude those mentioned things, so I wouldn't call them empty either. That's kind of the point of resolutions and treaties, to push for change, also at the legislative and executive level.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Do I go around using translating services for languages I'm not fluent in?

Yes, yes I do.

If they are not enforceable, then they are pointless, empty gestures, adding possible expenses to the state.

They do however tend to preclude those mentioned things, so I wouldn't call them empty either. That's kind of the point of resolutions and treaties, to push for change, also at the legislative and executive level.

Are you arguing with yourself?

 

[RokkanStoned]

Do I go around using translating services for languages I'm not fluent in?

Yes, yes I do.

Don't be surprised if you're talking out of your arse translating things then. Most of my links have clearly spelled out "there is a pressure for breastfeeding and it's felt by mother, either from the healthcare professionals or from society at large", then you're suddenly "uhum, I don't see the phrase 'dragged to hell' in my google translation". Which is just such a deaf response, more so requires an inability to understand how different data sources work. More so, it requires a pretty big arrogance of "I use my own cultural context in regards to an understand of healthcare in Norway and act baffled when a centralized healthcare system in a monocultural country exerts pressure on the individual through appeals to 'what's for the the best' in cases that have to do with two individuals?"
When people talk about country specific issues, you're likely to get country specific sources with country specific language, and whatever comment you'll be making will make you look like a fool commenting things you don't have the capability to grasp. It's at that point you should say, "okay, I'll just have to take your word for it since I don't understand the language, but can you present some more context for me, so that I can grasp the issue better? It might be a country-specific issue, so it might not be generalized.".

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Suddenly? from the first links you posted I said "You linked to things, I tried my best to read them through google translate".

If you want to wait while I learn the language, I'll get back to you, but like I said from what I read there wasn't the implication you put forth.

I mean, your last sentence, that's what I said.

 

[greyshark]

Suddenly? from the first links you posted I said "You linked to things, I tried my best to read them through google translate".

If you want to wait while I learn the language, I'll get back to you, but like I said from what I read there wasn't the implication you put forth.

I mean, your last sentence, that's what I said.

You've now had three different people from three separate countries talk to you about the stigma associated with breastfeeding and you have yet to meaningfully reply to any of the points associated with the subject. At this point it appears as if you're more interested in scoring forum points than having an actual discussion about breastfeeding.

Would this link help you understand where we are coming from?

http://www.momtastic.com/parenting/483361-stop-bottle-shaming-ok-not-breastfeed/

 

[Papa]

You skipped the step where government agencies have been set up to look into all those ?s you posited.

but less government rabble rabble.

What a sad sad world that people are afraid of science and research. This is what pruit and devos and tillerson were put in place to do.

And ignorant people eat it the fuck up.

I don’t think it’s about ignoring/being afraid of the science; rather, it’s about acknowledging it but allowing people to make their own minds up and not regulating their choices. The only regulation I would be in favour of here is blatant false marketing by the manufacturers but that’s already illegal.