US opposes international breast feeding resolution


In the US we are fortunate to have access to clean water in most places. Mixing formula is not usually a health risk.

In developing countries breast feeding is safer because of many reasons, it is beneficial for the immune system of the nursling, it avoids contaminated and/or spoiled formula, and it helps mother with postpartum healing, and natural child spacing.

To benefit formula manufacturers.


I originally saw this news item in the New York Times . I posted this one because it avoids a paywall.


From what I read breast feeding is always better. The mother’s milk is unique. No other formula can compare.
The risks involve bacteria in the water and ladder (yes again ladder like in the vaccines) added in powder milk as a preservative. But even if the formula would be cleared of ladder and bacteria, mother’s milk is still better. It contains substances that the mother’s body produce to sustain the baby’s imune system. The way God created it. Powder milk is made by people. Is great for extreme cases when breastfeeding is not possible.


Pity the NYT has become so bad at actual journalism

The WHO etal have been promoting breast feeding as the best solution since 1981 and nobody has suggested a change in this recommendation.

But should the WHO effectively ban the marketing of substitutes?


What do you expect when they can’t eat at female chicken restaurant?


This is literally worse than Hitler…


Another example of terrible reporting.

If you are a Trump hating leftist (NYT’s and beast’s targe audience) then this article reafffirms your belief that all republicans/conservatives are actually at war on not only women across the world, but their children. After all, republicans/conservatives REALLY ARE evil nazis who want to throw grandma off the cliff while ripping children out of the arms of their mothers who are chained in the kitchen as they kick over the barrels of toxins into our pristine waters…well…at least that’s what leftist democrats believe.

Meanwhile, if you are an independent thinker and read this article, you are left with a GLARING question that a real reporter would have answered in the article, but didnt: “Why?”

Why would the US delegation oppose this?

Are they US delegation members actually evil Nazi’s who want children to die? No, they are not.

What are the other alternatives? Could it be that the details of this international resolution on breastfeeding (BTW…why on earth do we NEED an INTERNATIONAL resolution on breast feeding??) ban supplements that may be beneficial to certain populations? Is it an economic issue where this locks out some US exports?

Why would we be against this?

This so-called reporter didn’t bother to ask, let alone answer, that question. Instead he chose to simply feed his base audience with more hatred of America in general, and Trump administration in particular.

This is today’s mainstream media.


Is there a source we can read that presents a more balanced view?

I don’t trust the media any more, both right and left leaning.


I didn’t post the New York Times article. :woman_shrugging:t2:



Since the beast just blogged on the NYT article, it seemed more appropriate to be critical of the original article. Nobody expects the beast to meet journalistic standards of ethics.


You don’t know that it is terrible reporting. You only assume so because you don’t like what is being reported.

The current US administration is fanatically pro-US-business, regardless of the consequences on anyone else. In this case, they are pandering to the infant formula industry to remove all restrictions on inappropriate promotion of their products in third-world countries. The WHO member nations want to stop deceptive promotions that presents artificial formula as just as good and healthy for these women in third-world countries for whom it is really inappropriate to replace breast-feeding with formula feeding in those cases where breast-feeding is possible. The restrictions do not ban all such sale or advertising. They just place reasonable restrictions on the advertising to make sure these women understand that if they can breast-feed, it is safest that they do so - especially considering the technical difficulties of properly handling formula in a third-world environment.

To curb the abuses of formula makers that might otherwise subvert science for their own financial gain.

No, it only restricts deceptive advertising.

To make money for the formula makers as described above.


By the way, we went through this very same argument 40 years ago with the Nestle controversy. Anyone remember that?

If you want to read what the WHO actually says about breast-feeding you can start here.


From the NYT:

The State Department declined to respond to questions, saying it could not discuss private diplomatic conversations. The Department of Health and Human Services, the lead agency in the effort to modify the resolution, explained the decision to contest the resolution’s wording but said H.H.S. was not involved in threatening Ecuador.

“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.
The intensity of the administration’s opposition to the breast-feeding resolution stunned public health officials and foreign diplomats, who described it as a marked contrast to the Obama administration, which largely supported W.H.O.’s longstanding policy of encouraging breast-feeding.

Before launching into a criticism of the NYT’s work, you really might wantot read it. Just in case the questions you wanted addressed actually were.


I’ve given examples of why it is terrible reporting, none of which were because I didn’t “like” what was reported.

It’s terrible reporting because it only gives one side of the story.

Those evil republicans…throwing grandma off the cliff while tearing children apart…blah blah blah.


I did read it, and the journalism is c r a p.
They didn’t delve into any of the objections.

They WHO et al have been promoting breastfeeding since the early 80’s, there has been no change to that sound push.


nope. …


The “change” as I understand it, in on our part, where the US is now objecting to the policy.


The poster that I responded to claimed taht these didn’t answer the questions “Why would the US delegation oppose this?”. They in fact did ask and reported the answer. Now, it is a matter of insufficient “delving”. :roll_eyes: I can scarecley wait to see that standard applied to FOX, let alone Breitbart.

And the article did not claim that WHO changed, but that the US changed, in a way that left people “stunned”.


In developing countries, why would a woman EVER choose formula over breast if there was an option to breastfeed? I don’t know, this seems like a big nothing burger to me and I still breastfeed my 13 month old while pregnant with my 3rd. I believe women in developing countries(more than in Europe where they shun it because “breasts are for sex”)know the benefits of breastfeeding and have the autonomy to make that decision if its possible for them.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit