Boycott Nestle

[Guest]

Spoken like someone who's never had a baby to care for.

Please take your tantrum with JK into private messages.

Some of us actually want to discuss things.

-Who

 

[Soubrette]

Basically I'm asking you again - isn't it fair to say that they are making reasonable decisions based on the information they are being fed.

No. One shouldn't base decisions on advertisements and promotions alone.

So what about Mr Beerdrinker? What is he basing his decisions on?

And what other inputs do you think these new mothers should use?

and I'm off for the night now - I hope we can continue this tomorrow

Sou

 

[Guest]

"Yet your extreme crack cocaine analogy is pure logic "

I'm sure the pink unicorns will be following soon after.

-Who

 

[thaiboxerken]

So what about Mr Beerdrinker? What is he basing his decisions on?

And what other inputs do you think these new mothers should use?

and I'm off for the night now - I hope we can continue this tomorrow

Sou

Beerdrinker is basing his decisions on a fantasy.

Mothers should use doctor's advice. Doctors should give the pro's and con's of both methods of feeding.

 

[Thanz]

Soubrette : Look at my link again Thai - the one to the BMJ - Nestle appear to offer incentives to the Drs and Nurses. They do not comply with the voluntary code laid down with by the WHO. You can dismiss this as junk science again if you wish - but I did winnow through a whole load of sites trying to come up with independent ones - such as the news site, rather than anti Nestlé sites.

TBK: Are incentives the same as bribes? Many doctors are offered incentives for all kinds of medical products. If a doctor fails to inform the patient about the pros and cons of breast vs bottle feeding, that doctor should be held accountable.

Well, I'll wade in here for a sec. According to a link from Soubrette, I'd say that the incentives are the same as bribes. From the link:

The whole Nestlé mess has two main roots. The first is its aggressive promotion of infant formula milk in developing countries, like Ethiopia, at the expense of breast milk. This has been in defiance of the World Health Organisation (WHO) which advocates exclusive breastfeeding for the first four to six months if possible and which, in 1981, passed an International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes to protect against unscrupulous encouragement to bottlefeed. Milk substitutes need to be made up with water. So, wherever there is water of dubious quality -- abundant in third world countries where poor hygiene and poor water supply are common -- there are huge risks of introducing virulent water-borne diseases to babies from bottled formula milk.

Dr Raj Anand, trained in medical college in Britain and now one of India's top paediatricians, says babies fed on infant formula are 14 times more likely to die from diarrhoea than those who are breastfed. He has waged a decades-long campaign against Nestlé for paying incentives to Indian general practitioners to recommend Nestlé baby milk powder to new or expectant mothers rather than breast milk. [emphasis added]

Around the world, the case against Nestlé since 1979 is that the company has systematically and cynically undermined the WHO's and many other organisations' promotion of breastfeeding. Nestlé was sending -- and in some countries still does -- its salesmen into maternity units in poor countries dressed in white doctors' labcoats to give a false impression of authority. They were handing out gift packs of bottles and milk powder to new mothers, thereby undermining their commitment to breastfeeding.

It seems that Nestle is doing some underhanded things in hte marketing of the formula, which has a direct negative impact on the health of the children.

However, I do agree with TBK that the doctors and nurses need to shoulder more responsibility. From my own experience as a new dad, I can say that breastfeeding is HARD. Especially in the first week after birth. The woman is exhausted, the milk hasn't come in yet, learning to do it properly can be difficult and painful. The support that we received from the doctors and more importantly the nurses at the hospital was invaluable. If those nurses had instead just bottlefed the baby because it was (a) easier and (b) put cash in their pocket from the manufacturer of the formula going back to breast feeding after leaving the hospital would have been very difficult.

As for the whole "nipple confusion" thing, my daughter can certainly tell the difference between the two and definately prefers the breast. She will now take a bottle once in a while, but only from certain people. I have had sessions where she was screaming and refused the bottle. However, after we gave up on the bottle at that particular time and offered the breast, she drank quite hungrily. It certainly is not a matter of putting any nipple (real or fake) in front of a child's mouth. Anyone who thinks so obviously has no kids.

 

[jj]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jj

Spoken like someone who's never had a baby to care for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Please take your tantrum with JK into private messages.

Some of us actually want to discuss things.

-Who

I speak from my experience, which suggests that JK has no idea how an infant behaves, how they eat, etc. Exactly what evidence do you have to suggest that the facts, the simple, easily demonstrated facts I've pointed out, are incorrect?

Some key terms: Oxytocin
Aureola
Progestin

If so, speak.

If not, explain how showing the facts to a raving misogynist like JK is a "tantrum".

If you have something substantive to say, please say it. If you have some evidence to JK's astonishingly strange claims of how infants and breastfeeding work, provide them.

Hiding behind JK speaks ill of you, Whodini. You've espoused total quackery before, but this is the first time I've seen you come out and support an overt misogynist in full rant.

 

[Jedi Knight]

I speak from my experience, which suggests that JK has no idea how an infant behaves, how they eat, etc. Exactly what evidence do you have to suggest that the facts, the simple, easily demonstrated facts I've pointed out, are incorrect?

Some key terms: Oxytocin
Aureola
Progestin

If so, speak.

If not, explain how showing the facts to a raving misogynist like JK is a "tantrum".

If you have something substantive to say, please say it. If you have some evidence to JK's astonishingly strange claims of how infants and breastfeeding work, provide them.

Hiding behind JK speaks ill of you, Whodini. You've espoused total quackery before, but this is the first time I've seen you come out and support an overt misogynist in full rant.

Jesus you are a moron.

The only position I have held is that a baby doesn't give a rat's ass where the milk is coming from when it is hungry.

You are the one advancing pseudo-science by saying a baby-bottle is going to affect hundreds of thousands of years of gut human instinct.

The whole topic on baby bottles is psuedo-science. If a baby is conditioned to drink from a bottle, their behavior will expect future food to come from the bottle. If they are hungry, however, (not just spoiled), they will readily consume breast milk.

Now explain why that isn't true using non-pseudo facts. You also didn't answer the question if there were baby bottles in 1850. Did the tens of millions of babies born in that year need them?

Come on, echo-feminist, explain that away.

JK

 

[Guest]

Exactly what evidence do you have to suggest that the facts, the simple, easily demonstrated facts I've pointed out, are incorrect?

I don't. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that you are JK are clutter here.

If you have something substantive to say, please say it. If you have some evidence to JK's astonishingly strange claims of how infants and breastfeeding work, provide them.

Yeah, I'll save the substantive things for you to say: Quack! Quack! Quack!

this is the first time I've seen you come out and support an overt misogynist in full rant.

Oh please JJ, please reveal to us all where I said that I support JJ, or else apologize (cold day in hell).

-Who

 

[Jedi Knight]

Did Nestle make baby-milk in 1850? Did it matter?

Nope.

That is why the entire subject is mythology, pseudo-science and superstition.

JK

 

[jj]

From my own experience as a new dad, I can say that breastfeeding is HARD. Especially in the first week after birth. The woman is exhausted, the milk hasn't come in yet, learning to do it properly can be difficult and painful. The support that we received from the doctors and more importantly the nurses at the hospital was invaluable. If those nurses had instead just bottlefed the baby because it was (a) easier and (b) put cash in their pocket from the manufacturer of the formula going back to breast feeding after leaving the hospital would have been very difficult.

As for the whole "nipple confusion" thing, my daughter can certainly tell the difference between the two and definately prefers the breast. She will now take a bottle once in a while, but only from certain people. I have had sessions where she was screaming and refused the bottle. However, after we gave up on the bottle at that particular time and offered the breast, she drank quite hungrily. It certainly is not a matter of putting any nipple (real or fake) in front of a child's mouth. Anyone who thinks so obviously has no kids.

Thanz, I can tell you've had experience. It's interesting how people who have actually DONE something seem to agree on this, isn't it. It seems that some people think that infants do not have preferences, tendencies, or the ability to notice that "something is different", something that anyone who ever raised one (and I mean from day 1 here) rarely seems to believe.

Our first one, although partially bottle-fed, would only willingly take water from a bottle in seriously hot weather. For food it was mom. OR ELSE. And anyone who thinks a 1-month-old can not indicate serious annoyance is SERIOUSLY wrong! She would take expressed milk from a bottle grudgingly when mom was busy during the day, but first she'd make sure that everyone knew she didn't like it. At birth, she started out with mom, and got only some water for hydration. (JK, you may at least be comfortable in saying that babies know who mom is, and what she's for. You can indeed count on that. What you don't realize is that the "how" isn't so simple.)

I'm fairly sure she would have taken formula if need be, and did take some here and there, but it was "mom, (*&(*&it" for her from about 4 hours onwards. I was welcome to hold her, but I was just NOT the source of manna and she knew that, well most of the time, OW!

What was irritating in our second birth was that one of the nurses took it upon herself to use formula at night, instead of waking up my wife, who woke up very ready to nurse in the morning to a fed baby. She was not amused. She asked for a pump, the nurse offered "well, I can get you a pill to make that stop almost instantly". No, she didn't fall for it, and got another nurse in, who brought the baby back and provided some containers. Not a pump, but sufficient in that case. The first nurse said (to me) something to the effect of "well, she's one of those professional women, I'm sure she doesn't want (graphic depiction of nursing deleted)". Interesting she didn't have the manners to ask mom first.

Good thing it was the second baby. Mom was, despite it being the day after labor, incensed. Mom is quite capable of making that point when she needs to, so there was never any real threat, but HOLY )(*&(&*( what kind of stunt was that?

The second one was omnivore, mom, bottle, formula, whatever. She did wean very early, but with what one can describe as 'great success' so we didn't let it bother us.

And thank you, Thanz, for offering another EXPERIENCED viewpoint. I find it astonishing how many people who have NO idea what they are talking about here are so willing to say so many mean words...

 

[jj]

Originally posted by Whodini Oh please JJ, please reveal to us all where I said that I support JJ, or else apologize (cold day in hell).

-Who [/B]

You just erupted forth in support of JK, who is in full rant. You don't have to say it. Actions speak louder than words.

Now, unless you have something constructive to say, off with you.

 

[Jedi Knight]

You just erupted forth in support of JK, who is in full rant. You don't have to say it. Actions speak louder than words.

Now, unless you have something constructive to say, off with you.

Hey loser, you are the one in full rant. I am laughing about this stupid subject.

Tell me, how is milk in a bottle different than milk from a nursing mother in necessity only?

It isn't. They both are means to an end where the 'bottle feeding' format is simply a 'choice' for the nursing mother who doesn't want to breast-feed.

That is why boycotting Nestle is pretty hilarious superstition.

You aren't playing with your Voodoo dolls again, are you?

lol

JK

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Jon

how the hell would that word?

Because mom's that breast feed are providing a psychological need for their child. Breast feeding is about nurturing as much as feeding.

Likewise such mothers may naturally just care for their child more(why they breast feed).

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!

THAT paticular conclusion was not proven. Only that babies who are breast fed tend to have lower mortality rates, this could be for a variety of reasons. Do not assume chronology equals causality Jon.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Gosh, how did all those tiny little babies survive without Nestle milk?

Mommy took care of them.

JK

 

[jj]

Jesus you are a moron.

Practicing medicine without a license? Really? Prove it. If you can't, turn in your license. Or were you saying that a 1st century perhaps-mythical figure was a moron? If so, got any evidence for THAT?

The only position I have held is that a baby doesn't give a rat's ass where the milk is coming from when it is hungry.

No, that's not the only position you've held.

THAT position is flat-out wrong, of course, just like your position on "feminazis" being against breastfeeding, etc, but it's far from the only position you've held here. You claim breast-feeding is easy, any baby can do it from the start, feminists are against breast feeding, you appear to think I'm against it, etc. I dare say you're shooting 0 for 100 so far.

You are the one advancing pseudo-science by saying a baby-bottle is going to affect hundreds of thousands of years of gut human instinct.

I didn't say that, and you know it. It seems that you now feel license to completely depart from the truth. Why?

The whole topic on baby bottles is psuedo-science. If a baby is conditioned to drink from a bottle, their behavior will expect future food to come from the bottle. If they are hungry, however, (not just spoiled), they will readily consume breast milk.

Explain to me the 10 day old 'spoiled' infant, how you can show that they are "spoiled" when even the most expert psychologists and researchers in the world can't figure out entirely what a 10 day old infant knows, and what your "evidence" is for your position, either about what the baby will do, or how they might be "spoiled" is. Yeah, come on, you're talking about science here, so let's see your support for that fantastic statement.

Now explain why that isn't true using non-pseudo facts. You also didn't answer the question if there were baby bottles in 1850. Did the tens of millions of babies born in that year need them?

This dishonesty is simply beyond the pale, Jedi.

First, it's irrelevant if there were baby bottles or anything to put in them in 1850.

Second, I haven't asserted that the babies DID need them. Why did you ask ME that?

What I have pointed out is that your question is dishonest in the first place. We are talking about the effect of artificial nipples, formula, etc, on babies. Since they didn't exist in any modern form in 1850, the question is irrelevant. They had no effect relevant to modern form when they did not exist in modern form.

So you don't get an answer to your irrelevant question. You know it's irrelevant, I know it, and so does everyone else.

Now, whereEVER did you get the idea that I think any normal babies need artificial feeding of any sort? I certainly haven't taken that position at all.

Come on, echo-feminist, explain that away.

JK

Explain what?

First, you said that feminists are against breast feeding. Since I'm for it, despite your clearly dishonest implications otherwise, I guess I'm not an "echo-feminist"?

Oh, wait, did you mean to say it the other way, or did you just get confused in your rush to abuse your betters? Geeze, you are in such a rush to hand out abuse you can't even figure out who to abuse for what reason!

Or did you just show up to lie about people, conciously and maliciously defame them, and make trouble because you think it might convince somebody to shut this board down.

I'm sure that this board annoys the daylights out of you, since we routinely dismember your insane burblings. I think that's proof of this board's value, myself.

Leave, you mean, dishonest troll, just leave.

(edited for typokinesis)

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Also It'[s interesting to note that some are assuming conspiracy on the basis of plausible motives: Nestle may be giving babies addictive substances for profit now equals Nestle probably is, because I can't think of a reason to give away free formula.

That is just spurrious and unwarranted though. Nestle may be doing it for good PR for example. Just because you can't think of any motive save a malevolent one doesn't mean Nestle can't.

 

[Malachi151]

Its impossible to battle truisims, which right wingers thrive on.

 

[jj]

Tell me, how is milk in a bottle different than milk from a nursing mother in necessity only?

Quite, as you've been cited. Not only is breast milk better nuitrition, the colostrum and immune content of breast milk is shown (by that I mean actual mechanisms demonstrated, which is hard to get by) to be helpful to the child, and we've left out any psychological issues at all. Then there's the fat balance, the kinds of sugars, the allergenic reactions to SOME kids...

So you've been told, and told repeatedly. How does it feel to be an ostrich?

 

[jj]

Because I told you that you were being cluttering in a thread, between the time when you posted and JK posted, therefore I am in support of JK?

Actions speak louder than words, and your actions here are the clutter, the spam, and the stalking.

So buzz off. Unless you have something constructive to add, like if you know anything about breastfeeding, just buzz off. The only one you're fooling, and only maybe, is yourself.

 

[jj]

That is why boycotting Nestle is pretty hilarious superstition.

I see. And my position on that boycott is, pray tell?