Boycott Nestle

[DialecticMaterialist]

The link does not work.

 

[Jon_in_london]

http://www.unsystem.org/scn/Publications/foundation4dev/03Population.pdf

 

[Mr Manifesto]

<big snip>
I've also e-mailed Nestlé to see if they still continue this practice. I'll let you know if I get a response.

Sou

Considering what a PR hot-potato this is for Nestle, I'd be intrested to see if they respond. For my part I think you'll be waiting a loooooooong time.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Soulbrette, your article makes an interesting observations:

If the mother eats a poor diet, this can decrease both the amount of milk produced and the nutrients found in the milk. Women who are breast-feeding should consume an extra 500 calories per day above their maintenance calories.

Third world countries breat milk may then be even poorer then the formular. In terms of nutrition anyways.

As for anectodotal evidence it seems questionable and I have some to the contrary as well. Mainly from a behavioral scientist.

In any case did you consider that the baby may not have been hungry when you tried to feed it? That it may have taken a while to get used to etc?

Babies for example will even suck on a finger, I don't see why they'd suck on a fnnger and refuse a nipple.

Mr. Manifesto, your article seems distubringly biased and questionable.

While I agree breast milk is healthier, how much healthier seems to be exagerated.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Third world countries breat milk may then be even poorer then the formular. In terms of nutrition anyways.

Well then, If nestle is so concerned about it all, why dont they give food to mothers instead?

 

[Jon_in_london]

From USAID

Breastfeeding saves up to six million lives every year. Fully supported, optimal breastfeeding could save an additional 1 to 2 million infants.


Breastfeeding is the infant's first "immunization" against infectious diseases. Exclusively breastfed infants have 2.5 times fewer episodes of childhood diseases. Infants who are not breastfed are up to 25 times more likely to die from diarrhea and nearly 3 times more likely to die from acute respiratory infections than those who are exclusively breastfed .


Breastfeeding alone is the best nutrition for the first six months of life, and remains an excellent staple food for up to two years or more. Breastmilk changes composition to meet the child's nutritional growth needs and contains a host of specialized nutritional and immunological properties that enhance child growth and development.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well Jon's and this article: http://www.supercolostrum.com/Colostrum/Information/information11e.htm

Do seem to indicate that breast feeding is far healthier in the third world then bottle feeding. Though it does demand the mother take extra calories and can be painful/inconveniant. However death rates for breast fed babies are lower, this may be as much psychological/behavioral as well as nutritional though.

However I have yet to see evidence that bottle feeding interferes with breast feeding. Or that Nestle is involved in an anti- breast milk conspiracy.

Also if it is, I believe the proper course would be government punishment, not boycott. Boycott's are very difficult to organize and very rarely work. Even if they do work, there are ways to avoid a boycott. Clothing companies in the US generally don't buy from people that use child labor in India for example, but the owners in India can get around this by selling the clothes to an Italian company first, which then sells it to the US. So the US companies just see a "Made in Italy" logo and don't investigate for child labor.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Also Jon do you think artificial formula will ever surpass breast milk in terms of nutritional value and such? Also do you still maintain that HIV and other severe diseases are the only possible reasons for not breast feeding?

 

[Malachi151]

BTW, the only time a mother should bottle feed instead of breast feed is when for example the mother is HIV+

So you're saying that all Africans should bottle feed?

Sorry, poor taste

Okay, very poor taste, but I have a hard time pasing up jokes

 

[Jon_in_london]

However death rates for breast fed babies are lower, this may be as much psychological/behavioral as well as nutritional though.

how the hell would that word?

Though it does demand the mother take extra calories and can be painful/inconveniant.

As inconvinient as having to boil water to make up the milk formula and sterilize/sanitize the bottle as well?!

Brings me to the question of Nestle's motivation. Its obviously not for the benefit of the people they are giving their product to- as shown in my links bottle feeding is much worse than breast feeding. If this is a PR stunt then its backfired horribly due to all the negative publicity. So why keep on with it? Maybe because they do in fact want to get people 'hooked' on their product?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Also Jon do you think artificial formula will ever surpass breast milk in terms of nutritional value and such? Also do you still maintain that HIV and other severe diseases are the only possible reasons for not breast feeding?

Its not the nutritional value thats the issue. Its the immunological properties of breast milk that make it so special. That and the fact that breast milk doesnt need any boiling/sterilization/sanitation etc etc... Its free. Its healthier. Its available. Use it!

HIV and other diseases as werll as cases where the mother actually cant breast feed eg: severe malnutrition. In that case thoug- nestle would do better to give free kit-kats to the mothers rather than powdered milk to the baby.

 

[Soubrette]

Soulbrette, your article makes an interesting observations:



Third world countries breat milk may then be even poorer then the formular. In terms of nutrition anyways.

As for anectodotal evidence it seems questionable and I have some to the contrary as well. Mainly from a behavioral scientist.

In any case did you consider that the baby may not have been hungry when you tried to feed it? That it may have taken a while to get used to etc?

Babies for example will even suck on a finger, I don't see why they'd suck on a fnnger and refuse a nipple.

Mr. Manifesto, your article seems distubringly biased and questionable.

While I agree breast milk is healthier, how much healthier seems to be exagerated.

Please give me your examples to the contrary I find anecdotally evidence interesting.

Of course she may not have been hungry - although I have to say I did try to introduce the bottle more than once. Gave up in the end and went straight to a cup at 5 months

And it goes without saying that a person who has a nutritionally poor diet will give nutritionally poorer breastmilk than someone who does not.

However as Jon has correctly pointed out breast milk gives more than just a nutritionally balanced meal to your child. It also gives a certain amount of antibodies and protection to your child. Maybe if this could be incorporated into bottled milk then it might come somewhere near as good as breast milk.

Breast milk is also divided into fore and aft milk - with the latter being richer and more satisfying. Basically breast milk has evolved to satisfy the needs of a human child. At the moment we're not there in bottle milk.

I do think it's important to note that there are many babies (I am one myself) who have grown up perfectly adequately on a diet of bottled milk only.

Sou

 

[Soubrette]

Here's another link, this time on establishing your milk supply

http://health.discovery.com/diseasesandcond/encyclopedia/1875.html

She has this advice about introducing bottles or pacifiers early.

Avoid artificial nipples and supplemental feeding during the early weeks of nursing. (See article on “Introducing Bottles and Pacifiers to the Breastfed Baby” for more details). While some babies switch back and forth from breast to bottle easily from the first day, many babies will become nipple confused if you introduce artificial nipples before they have mastered the art of breastfeeding.

She says in the linked article: Introducing Bottles and Pacifiers to a Breastfed Baby

The mechanics of breast and bottle-feeding are quite different. When a baby nurses, his tongue and jaws must work together rhythmically, cupping his tongue under the areola, and pressing it up against his palate. This flattens and elongates the tissue around the nipple. He then drops the back of his tongue to form a groove for the milk to flow from the nipple to his throat. He swallows, then takes a breath. His lips are flanged out tightly around the breast to form a tight seal.

When a baby drinks from a bottle, the milk gushes out (you’ll notice that the milk drips out if you hold a bottle upside down). In order to keep from choking, he lifts his tongue uses it to block the flow of milk. He purses his lips around the hard rubber nipple, and he doesn’t have to use his jaws at all. There is a constant flow of milk that he doesn’t have to work for, unlike during breastfeeding, where the milk ‘lets down’ initially, then slows to a trickle, and the process repeats as the baby sucks harder and longer. This occurs several times during a feeding, and is one of the reasons breastfed babies are less likely to become obese than bottle-fed babies: they regulate their own intake by how long and vigorously they suck. Bottle-fed infants will often finish a bottle not because they are hungry, but because they love to suck, and the milk flows so easily.

She also says that some babies have difficulty and some do not.
I think that fits in with my anecdotally experiences

Sou

 

[michaellee]

If a mother dies during childbirth, is the father then better off
to:

A. Ask the nearest lactating, HIV-negative female if she has some free time, say a year, and thinks you're cute?

B. Bolt from the delivery room while simultaneously dialing Ralph Nader on your cell phone?

C. Sue the hospital for killing the only woman you truly ever loved and auction the rugrat off to the highest black-market adoption bidder?

D. Feed the kid some f.....g formula.


geeezz! and what are two male partners desiring to raise an infant to do?

 

[thaiboxerken]

lol. I am not trying to find out if breast-milk is better than forumula, I actually believe it is. But, the junk-science here seems to implicate that Nestle's soul purpose is providing free formula is to get babies dependant on their products.

This is junk-science, they take some real scientific facts and misrepresent it to fulfill their agenda.

Nestle gives out a free product that mothers can use if they want to. Nestle is not forcing this product into the mouths of babies. Some moms just don't want to breast-feed and some can't.

Of course, Nestle will make some money charging for their product outside of this free period.

The entire article seems to want to spread a clain about Nestle as being a company that would rather see babies starve than not use their product.

I highly doubt that Nestle giving out free milk is the same as a drug dealer giving out free crack-cocaine.

 

[Trollbane]

Its a damned if you do and damned if you dont.. Imagine the boycotts if Nestle decided to stop supplying the hospitals with free breast milk substitute, how long it would take for someone to start a boycott because a evil corporation is starving the babies?

 

[Soubrette]

All quotes originally posted by thaiboxerken
lol. I am not trying to find out if breast-milk is better than forumula, I actually believe it is. But, the junk-science here seems to implicate that Nestle's soul purpose is providing free formula is to get babies dependant on their products.

Ah but isn't it true that some babies will have difficulty taking from the nipple if they are used to bottles? Read my link further up.

Also there is the problem of not feeding your child the initial colostrum

Plus the fact that your milk supply wll probably dry up if you do not regularly feed your baby. The more you rely on bottled milk - the more quickly you will find your own supply dries up.

This is junk-science, they take some real scientific facts and misrepresent it to fulfill their agenda.

I think they have put a spin on what (if it is happening) is a very dubious practice indeed.

So the sentence "When new born babies are given bottles, they are less able to suck well" does appear to have some basis in fact, although I believe it would be more accurate to say some babies etc. Of course there doesn't seem to be any scientific studies on this so really we can only go by the advice of others - which seems to be that combining bottle and nipple for very young children is not a good idea.

Read Jon's link - it's scary reading for all you who are arguing that Nestlé are merely fulfilling their civic duty providing this stuff.

Nestle gives out a free product that mothers can use if they want to. Nestle is not forcing this product into the mouths of babies. Some moms just don't want to breast-feed and some can't.

The documentary I saw on it showed that these poor uneducated mothers were given the impression that their babies would thrive on this "western" convenience. There are lots of pictures of fat, healthy, rosy cheeked white babies slurping on their bottles. The impression is two fold to these mothers. First that bottle fed babies are healthier and second that its the right thing to do as the affluent West does it.

Thai - the situation is completely different in Third World countries than it is here. Mothers may choose not to breast feed - but if they choose not to breast feed but don't understand the increased health risks, the increased mortality rates and the increased costs of this strategy then someone is taking advantage of their ignorance. No one would think anything of Nestlé handing out free products in our hospitals or indeed free products to ladies unable to breastfeed in third world countries. But to encourage those who can, to not, without the full facts that we have here is totally immoral.

Of course, Nestle will make some money charging for their product outside of this free period.

Indeed - which seems to negate your idea about Nestlé offering choice and help to those unable to breastfeed. You can't bottle feed solidly for a month and then go back to breast feeding - or at least most people can't.

The entire article seems to want to spread a clain about Nestle as being a company that would rather see babies starve than not use their product.

No but certainly a company that chooses profitablilty and does not see the long term problems of pushing its product in inappropriate situations.

I highly doubt that Nestle giving out free milk is the same as a drug dealer giving out free crack-cocaine.

Didn't you read Jon's link?

Sou

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ah but isn't it true that some babies will have difficulty taking from the nipple if they are used to bottles? Read my link further up.

Some babies, yes. But it is a big jump to imply that babies will be dependant on the bottle, once started.

Also there is the problem of not feeding your child the initial colostrum

Plus the fact that your milk supply wll probably dry up if you do not regularly feed your baby. The more you rely on bottled milk - the more quickly you will find your own supply dries up.

Not really arguing that there are merits to breast feeding, but the claims that bottle-feeding makes a child dependants are ill-founded and based on misrepresentation. Some people have trouble eating raw fish because they've only eaten cooked fish, does this mean that they will starve if raw fish is the only food? The question is, do babies starve because of being introduced to the bottle? Are they really hooked for the rest of their infancy?

I think they have put a spin on what (if it is happening) is a very dubious practice indeed.

Spin is the keyword here, they are merely trying to spin people up in order to trash talk the "evil big business".

So the sentence "When new born babies are given bottles, they are less able to suck well" does appear to have some basis in fact, although I believe it would be more accurate to say some babies etc. Of course there doesn't seem to be any scientific studies on this so really we can only go by the advice of others - which seems to be that combining bottle and nipple for very young children is not a good idea.

This is the basis of junk-science, taking SOME facts and presenting it to fulfill an agenda. It's selective representation of data, dishonesty by undisclosing the whole story.

Thai - the situation is completely different in Third World countries than it is here. Mothers may choose not to breast feed - but if they choose not to breast feed but don't understand the increased health risks, the increased mortality rates and the increased costs of this strategy then someone is taking advantage of their ignorance. No one would think anything of Nestlé handing out free products in our hospitals or indeed free products to ladies unable to breastfeed in third world countries. But to encourage those who can, to not, without the full facts that we have here is totally immoral.

So, in third world countries, do they actually think that drinking Budweiser will make all the beach bunnies come running? I don't agree that it's immoral or unethical to promote a product that is not harmful to babies. Mothers should be asking doctors what's good for their child, regardless of what a commercial tells them. Doctors should be volunteering the information. It's a mother's choice.

Indeed - which seems to negate your idea about Nestlé offering choice and help to those unable to breastfeed. You can't bottle feed solidly for a month and then go back to breast feeding - or at least most people can't.

False, it's still a choice. Of course Nestle has to charge for their product at some point, that's the business of business. Mothers have more choices than using Nestle or starving their baby. A false dichotomy is implied by this junk-science site.

No but certainly a company that chooses profitablilty and does not see the long term problems of pushing its product in inappropriate situations.

I don't see that promoting a product to the target consumer is inappropriate. Would you rather have them promote baby formula's at sporting events?

Didn't you read Jon's link?

Junk science.

 

[Soubrette]

Thai

Do you agree that if a lactating mother stops feeding her baby breastmilk then her supply will dry up?

Sou

 

[thaiboxerken]

Do you agree that if a lactating mother stops feeding her baby breastmilk then her supply will dry up?

Yes. But it's a huge jump to say that trying Nestle milk makes a baby dependant on Nestle milk. Some mothers can use both breast-milk and formula. Some mothers would rather breastfeed, and others not. Nestle's simply making their product available for "demo". Also, mothers can use breast pumps as well, right? They can also go to a generic product that costs less, if they are "dried up".

It never comes to a point where a mother will either use Nestle milk or watch their baby die.