Boycott Nestle

[thaiboxerken]

JJ, putting Whodini on ignore will help keep him from bothering you. He used to follow me around in threads as well, until I stopped talking to him.

 

[jj]

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

You've already been caught goofing and then not admitting it.

Every word you say proves my original assertion. Having fun? I think Ken is right. Bye!

 

[specious_reasons]

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.

Please go back and read Thanz's comment.

No, wait, I'll pull out his emphasized text:

paying incentives to Indian general practitioners to recommend Nestlé baby milk powder to new or expectant mothers rather than breast milk.

That is malevolent.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Wow. This thread has certainly exploded.

I'd just like to say to thaiboxerken that the link you gave does not contain junk science. In fact, it contains no science at all. It does however contain some claims which aren't substantiated.

PS: Nice to see you are still around, Sou.

 

[Guest]

Every word you say proves my original assertion. Having fun? I think Ken is right. Bye!

JJ, I clearly didn't support JK in what I posted. You claim I did, then offer NO evidence, except to say that it is obvious, actions speak louder than words, BLAH blah blah blooey.

thaiboxerken reads every one of my messages, and so do you.

I at least admit when I am wrong, and have done it numerous times. I don't have any problems with that.

-Who

 

[Jedi Knight]

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?

I am not interested in your junk-science. I asked about necessity.

If a baby is fed via the mother's breast or via a bottle, there is no difference. The baby is being fed. That is the necessity. That makes bottle feeding nothing more than a convenience.

So the boycott against Nestle is mysticism, pseuo-science and superstition. Mommies are already equipped to feed their babies.

lol

JK

 

[Jedi Knight]

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

You don't need to have a position on it because you've already delved into the pseudo-logic abyss.

JK

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

JK

Many women have problems breast feeding. Many babies have problems thriving on breast feeding.

It's not as simple as just waving your bosom in your new baby's face and letting nature take its course.

Sou

/Start whisper

Sou,

JK has never seen a woman's breast, so don't be so hard on him.

/End whisper

 

[jj]

/Start whisper

Sou,

JK has never seen a woman's breast, so don't be so hard on him.

/End whisper

Oh, that's it, the envy factor.

Sheesh. Forgot how that works in the testosterone-poisoned youth.

 

[Globert]

As a father of two (one breast, one bottle) I'm interested in a double blind study. I need two people to take them (one each)for the next 17 years then give them back.

As ancedotal evedence:
Breastfeeding is cheaper.
Bottlefeeding is easier.

As far as the original thread topic, science or propiganda.
I think that Formula makers tread a pretty thin line between Benevolent Marketing and Smack Pusher tactics.

Both forms of feeding will result in healthy babies (in my two subject study).But to read the literature completely, said baby would probably be driving you to the library to finish the research.

So I see the problem as more of a "should we ban free formula as tough love because breastmilk is 'more better' and ensure mommy's 'Got milk?'"?
I have a problem with coerced values.
Not noted in the sites (But ancedotaly at my hospital pumps were free, electric pumps you paid for) was the availability of pumps to express milk.
yes, it is harder to maintain an expressed milk only regimen but easy or hard strikes to the bosom of the debate.
Do we give the poor unwashed a crutch before they limp?

 

[Soubrette]

Re: Jon

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).



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.

I'd be interested in some of your reasons Dialectic I'm still waiting on your comments from your behavioural friends

Read this link - it's about what's in breast milk:

http://www.promom.org/bf_info/sci_am.htm

Of course you can always says that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but I personally think there comes a point where you have to admit that in this instance it probably does but leave an open mind to new research.

Hey Danish - always nice to see you

thai - I want to look at the situation from a slightly different angle now.

We both agree that in most cases breast is best for your baby. Do we agree that in third world countries the differential between choosing formula and breast milk is much larger than in the developed countries?

What I mean by that is that breast or bottled is pretty much a moot point here - babies thrive on either.

The situation in the third world being different because of the cost, the lack of sanitary water etc. In effect I'm asking you if you accept that choosing formula milk over breast milk leads to a higher proportion of infant mortality compared to if only breast feeding were used? Or do you think this is junk science also?

Cheers

Sou

 

[athon]

Sadly I must agree, Athon really needs to back that claim up. I really fail to see why bottle feeding would impede breast feeding, and whether. Also how common is this? Common enough to become a profitable marketing ploy?

Without doing a webcrawl for it, I can only back it up with three years of pathology experience in a hospital, anecdotal evidence of a midwife, and my subject notes on embryology (QUT, 1998). Feel free to come over and read them if you want.

JK can say it's ridiculous, like I care. It's not like he's ever let facts get in the way of his beliefs before. The point is that while the argument against Nestle is shaky, it is based on a few facts in the least.

Athon

 

[Jedi Knight]

Without doing a webcrawl for it, I can only back it up with three years of pathology experience in a hospital, anecdotal evidence of a midwife, and my subject notes on embryology (QUT, 1998). Feel free to come over and read them if you want.

JK can say it's ridiculous, like I care. It's not like he's ever let facts get in the way of his beliefs before. The point is that while the argument against Nestle is shaky, it is based on a few facts in the least.

Athon

Nestle didn't exist in 1776. Jesus, how did all the babies eat?

JK

 

[athon]

If a baby is fed via the mother's breast or via a bottle, there is no difference. The baby is being fed. That is the necessity. That makes bottle feeding nothing more than a convenience.

JK

Hahahaha. Man, one day I'd like to visit JK's fantasy world. Ever thought of actually doing some reading one day? Or is absolutely everything part of The Great Conspiracy Theory?

Athon

 

[athon]

Nestle didn't exist in 1776. Jesus, how did all the babies eat?

JK

???

My argument was that the point made by the anti-nestle article concerning an infant's troubles going from bottle to breast is based on a valid objection. What does that have to do with Nestle's establishment?

While formula works well enough to keep an infant relatively healthy, it isn't superior to breast milk.

Athon

 

[BillyTK]

WHO (1998) Complementary feeding of young children in developing countries: A review of current scientific knowledge

9.1.1 Age of introduction of complementary foods and appropriate duration of breast-feeding
The primary authors of this report are of the view that full-term infants with appropriate weight-for-gestational-age should be exclusively breast-fed until about six months of age. This conclusion is probably also appropriate for term infants who are small-for-gestational-age at birth (<2 500 g), unless they are so underwight that they are too weak to suck or their mothers are severly malnourished. However, there are insufficient data from controlled interventions to permit definitive conclusions concerning these latter subgroups of children. If infants are too weak to suckle but are able to take oral feeding, they may be exclusively fed with breast milk expressed by their mothers. If mothers are severely malnourished, the conditions that produce maternal malnourishment also make artificial feeding very risky. If is preferable to correct the mother's nutritional status and support optimal breast-feeding than to provide breast-milk replacements.

From the British Medical journal archives:

(1997) Baby milk companies accused of breaching marketing code

Leading baby milk manufacturers are violating the international code on marketing breast milk substitutes, according to a damning report by a group of 27 religious and health organisations.

The World Health Organisation's international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes was adopted in 1981 to ensure safe and adequate infant nutrition by protecting and promoting breast feeding. A report by the Interagency Group on Breastfeeding Monitoring, which includes Unicef, Save the Children, and Voluntary Service Overseas, says that there is conclusive evidence that many infant formula manufacturers regularly breach this code.

(2000) Baby food industry lobbies WHO on breast feeding advice

Manufacturers of infant food are lobbying the World Health Organization (WHO) to delay any change to its recommendations on the optimal length of exclusive breast feeding.

The current WHO guidelines advocate complementary feeding at "4-6 months." But many nutrition specialists believe that these guidelines lead to complementary foods being offered from the age of 3 months, or even earlier, and that the WHO should change its recommendations to "about 6 months" (20 May, p 1362). [...]

A document passed to the BMJ shows that the International Association of Infant Food Manufacturers is lobbying the WHO at its six regional committee meetings this year, at the WHO's executive board meeting in January 2001, and at the World Health Assembly in May 2001.

The lobby message states: "Any action dealing with Infant and Young Child Nutrition should be delayed until the World Health Assembly 2002."

Note: nestle is a founder member of the International Association of Infant Food Manufacturers.

2003 Monitoring compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes in west Africa: multisite cross sectional survey in Togo and Burkina Faso

Objectives: To monitor compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes in health systems, sales outlets, distribution points, and the news media in Togo and Burkina Faso, west Africa.
[...]Conclusion: In west Africa manufacturers are violating the code of marketing of breast milk substitutes. Comparable levels of code violations are observed with (Burkina Faso) or without (Togo) regulating legislation.

and the following is amusing, from Nestle's Corporate Business Principles (* warning: pdf format *)

Nestlé believes that, as a general rule, legislation is the most effective safeguard of ethical conduct

 

[a_unique_person]

???

My argument was that the point made by the anti-nestle article concerning an infant's troubles going from bottle to breast is based on a valid objection. What does that have to do with Nestle's establishment?

While formula works well enough to keep an infant relatively healthy, it isn't superior to breast milk.

Athon

And breast milk is free, although all the mothers who don't use it should feel guilty about not contributing to the economy.

 

[a_unique_person]

Hahahaha. Man, one day I'd like to visit JK's fantasy world. Ever thought of actually doing some reading one day? Or is absolutely everything part of The Great Conspiracy Theory?

Athon

He could try having some kids of his own.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The situation in the third world being different because of the cost, the lack of sanitary water etc. In effect I'm asking you if you accept that choosing formula milk over breast milk leads to a higher proportion of infant mortality compared to if only breast feeding were used? Or do you think this is junk science also?

I'll agree here. I'm also agreeing that breast-milk is superior to bottled milk.

I'm not agreeing that what Nestle is doing is unethical or devious.

 

[Soubrette]

The situation in the third world being different because of the cost, the lack of sanitary water etc. In effect I'm asking you if you accept that choosing formula milk over breast milk leads to a higher proportion of infant mortality compared to if only breast feeding were used? Or do you think this is junk science also?

I'll agree here. I'm also agreeing that breast-milk is superior to bottled milk.

I'm not agreeing that what Nestle is doing is unethical or devious.

So it seems to me that we agree that formula milk results in deaths that could be avoidable if breast milk was given instead.

Further you state that the Drs, Nurses and nursing mothers should take responsibility for those decisions.

Why are the companies that supply and advertise formula milk, the only group getting off scot free in the responsibility stakes?

And do you draw a distinction between unethical and illegal - what I mean is, could someone be acting unethically but perfectly within the law?

Sou