Boycott Nestle

[thaiboxerken]

Nestlé and Wyeth, two of the World's largest producers of powdered baby milk, are currently breaking a World Health Organisation Code on the marketing of breast milk substitutes.
Nestlé and Wyeth provide free milk to maternity hospitals in the Third World so that newborn babies are routinely bottle-fed.
When newborn babies are given bottles, they are less able to suckle well. This makes breastfeeding failure likely. The baby is then dependent on artificial milk.
When the mother and baby leave hospital, the milk is no longer free. At home parents are forced to buy more milk, which can cost 50% of the family income.
Because the milk is so expensive the child is not fed enough. This leads to malnutrition.
The water mixed with the formula is often contaminated. This leads to diarhhoea, malnutrition and often death. James Grant, Executive Officer of UNICEF, has said:
Every day some 3,000 to 4,000 infants die because they are denied access to adequate breast milk.
1.5 million babies die every year from unsafe bottle feeding.
Breast feeding is free and safe and protects against infection - but companies know that unless they get babies on the bottle, they don't do business.


http://danny.oz.au/BFAG/







Is it just me, or does this website just stink of junk-science?

:confused:

[DanishDynamite]

The page you linked to seems to consists solely of the info you posted plus some additional links. Where is the junk-science?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The page you linked to seems to consists solely of the info you posted plus some additional links. Where is the junk-science?

The junk science on the website is the claim that babies won't breast feed if they are bottle fed.

If a baby gets hungry enough, he will breast feed.

That website is just an attack on capitalism. Here is the author's personal motive:

When the mother and baby leave hospital, the milk is no longer free. At home parents are forced to buy more milk, which can cost 50% of the family income.

So the boycott of Nestle is only necessary if Nestle doesn't provide free milk (socialism) to the nursing mothers.

It is junk-science.

JK

[DanishDynamite]

Jedi Knight: The junk science on the website is the claim that babies won't breast feed if they are bottle fed.The claim was, and I quote:

"When newborn babies are given bottles, they are less able to suckle well. This makes breastfeeding failure likely. "

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[thaiboxerken]

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I personally won't believe the claim unless they have several peer-reviewed studies to support it.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I personally won't believe the claim unless they have several peer-reviewed studies to support it. Fair enough.

However, where is the junk-science you referred to?

[thaiboxerken]

I said that it looks like junk-science, not that it is junk-science.

Here's why:

1. They make alot of claims without data to validate it.
2. It seems that there is an agenda here to cause a scare.
3. Nestle makes good chocolate.

;)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
"This makes breastfeeding failure likely. "

Bottle feeding and breast feeding are based on the same principle. You stick a hungry baby's lips to the nipple and they suck away.

JK

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I said that it looks like junk-science, not that it is junk-science.

Here's why:

1. They make alot of claims without data to validate it.
2. It seems that there is an agenda here to cause a scare.
3. Nestle makes good chocolate.

;) I understand where you are coming from, but to me junk-science refers to an attempt at explaining some effect by scientific sounding means which have no relation to proper science. I don't see such attempts.

[DanishDynamite]

Jedi Knight:Bottle feeding and breast feeding are based on the same principle. You stick a hungry baby's lips to the nipple and they suck away.

JK I asked for evidence, not old wives tales.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Jedi Knight:I asked for evidence, not old wives tales.

Actually it is BIO-035 lol. You must have missed your 8th grade sex-ed class.

JK

[EdipisReks]

as long as nestle is successful at sticking crunchy rice into chocolate, i will not boycott them.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Jedi Knight:I asked for evidence, not old wives tales.

how is that an old wives tale? clearly a bottle's nipple was modeled on a human nipple. and anyone who has seen an infant put against a lactating woman's breast knows that they "suck away" if they are pregnant. gosh, i never thought i would find myself defending JK.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


how is that an old wives tale? clearly a bottle's nipple was modeled on a human nipple. and anyone who has seen an infant put against a lactating woman's breast knows that they "suck away" if they are pregnant. gosh, i never thought i would find myself defending JK.

lol

JK

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


how is that an old wives tale? clearly a bottle's nipple was modeled on a human nipple. and anyone who has seen an infant put against a lactating woman's breast knows that they "suck away" if they are pregnant. gosh, i never thought i would find myself defending JK. It is an old wives tale in the sense that JK presents a view which sounds reasonable but which is unsubstantiated.

I simply asked for evidence which would, once and for all, counter the claim made.

[Monketey Ghost]

I thought something rather like this happened in the early eighties in India: A breast-milk substitute was marketed, and then when mothers had gotten their babies onto it, the company jacked up the price and many starved.

Or am I crazy, remembering things that never took place??

[athon]

Breastfeeding for an infant uses a different sucking motion than it does for a bottle. This is well documented, and most mothers who have used both methods can back it up.

The sucking reflex is both innate and learned. Infants know to purse their lips and 'suck' using their tongue whenever anything is put near their mouth, however depending on how the milk is expressed, the quantity etc. the sucking reflex can change slightly, varying the use of the tongue and the soft palate.

Breasts naturally 'squirt' milk out in a particular fashion. Babies learn how to suckle in the first few months to respond to this. Babies who are bottle fed and then breast fed tend not to make accomodation for this extra pressure (the reasons aren't fully understood, but they seem to involve a gag reflex apparently - according to the midwife at the hospital I worked at). Going from breast to bottle is often an easier transfer, although not always without difficulties.

While this article does seem to attack from a capitalist angle, I do see where it is going. I would be more worried about the mother's milk, than the baby's response to suckling. Milk changes as the feeding process goes on, and what the baby gets on day one is very different to what it gets at six months.

Athon
(JK, once again, try doing some homework rather than stating just what you assume is the truth)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So let me get this straight - Nestle trys to do somthing good by giving away free formula. And we're supposed to boycott them? Would you prefer they do nothing?

I don't routinely buy Nestle products (at least that I know of), but tomorrow I'm gonna search some out.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
So let me get this straight - Nestle trys to do somthing good by giving away free formula. And we're supposed to boycott them? Would you prefer they do nothing?

I don't routinely buy Nestle products (at least that I know of), but tomorrow I'm gonna search some out. I'm just curious here: What 'good' is it Nestle is trying do in the first place?

Is it 'good' to convince milk-producing mothers that they should rather feed their babies a mixture of powdered milk and whatever water they have access to? It seems to me nature had it all figured out already here .... :p

[Mr Manifesto]

Yes, Nestle give away free formula at hospitals purely out of the goodness of their bottomless hearts. I believe it. Like I believe in Santa Claus.

I wonder does Nestle's forumula help contribute to the immune system of the baby? Breastfeeding does. Here (http://www.healthychild.com/database/the_amazing_immunology_of_breastmilk.htm) is one link of many which tells you about it. Maybe Nestle baby formula comes with a complex set of antibiotics which boosts the infant's immune system- at no extra charge! Out of the goodness of their bottomless hearts!

[crackmonkey]

They're providing free milk, for God's sake... boycott them? Ever think that some babies don't have mothers able to express milk? Perhaps the mother died... boycotting Nestle for this is just bizarre.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I'm just curious here: What 'good' is it Nestle is trying do in the first place?


Giving away free formula. What have you done for these mothers?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Yes, Nestle give away free formula at hospitals purely out of the goodness of their bottomless hearts. I believe it. Like I believe in Santa Claus.


It helps their image and perhaps leads to increased sales. What have you done for these mothers? Let me guess - nothing.

[Malachi151]

Okay, I guess I'll chime in here.

This get's the the eart of the issue in the modern world.

We have a large group of Americans who take everything at face value, and implicitly believe the establishment in everything they say and in all their claimed motivations.

They have an explanation for everything.

The corporrate methods for "gettnig people hooked" when they are young are well documented and a well established part of major marketing schemes.

Giving away free products is a common way to promote a product. You see, in this case its likely that Nestle is getting a tax deduction for their "giving", which is really marketing.

Now, obviously the attempt here is to promote the use of their product outside of the hospital. This is not just abotu babies, but also conditioning of the mother.

If they get mothers accept and prefer bottle feeding then mothers will likely continue that behavior outside the hospital as well. It get's mother swho may have never considered an alternative to breast feeding to then consider it, and favor the Nestle product.

That's what its all about. Now, you can say that there is no problem there, thats' fine, but recognize this for what it is, its marketing, and in this case its for something that has been proven scientificaly to have drawbacks for the health of the baby, which is especially important in the 3rd world where disease is more common.

There are pages and pages of internal documents from various companies, such as cigarette companies, Coke, Pepsi, cerail companies, toy companies, etc, about marketing to children, infants and mothers.

Companies in America do simlar things with schools, giving breaks and even paying schools to exclusively carry their proucts, like Kraft, Coke, etc.

Its all about getting people hooked and dependant.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Conjecture upon conjecture. The old trick of backing up your lie with another lie.

For example when a priest was shown that the moon was not a perfect sphere via Galileo's telescope, that the moon in fact had craters, the response was "well maybe there is glass filling in that crater."

As for this baby milk thing, it sounds like an urban myth. Perhaps a prank, based on fears of american corporations, which according to some do bad things all the time, and fear of artificial products vs "traditional" country-style organic foods.

Sorry but it'll take more then a quick and dirty link, backed merely by sensationalism, to convince me of a claim as outrageous as this.

[specious_reasons]

I am of mixed opinions on this,

aginst the boycott:
- I can't find any evidence of Nestle doing this recently. So far, the only online articles I can find say it started in 1977, and I haven't found an end date.

- Yes, there is a difference between bottle feeding and breast feeding. My opinion is, though, if baby's hungry, it figures out how to eat. From ancedotal evidence, a baby can and will figure out the difference between bottle and breast and suck accordingly.

for the boycott:
- Breast milk gets produced on demand. The primary motivation for Nestle to give out free formula is to reduce demand for breast milk.

Baby formula is agressively marketed to expecting couples. Right now, the diaper bag I'm using comes from Enfamil, and the insulated bag I use to carry the bottles is from Isomil.
I would say that, for each child of mine, we received at least 2 weeks worth of formula, more for the first than the second. Plenty of time to reduce milk production to nothing. Knowing what I know, I didn't get a better impression of these formula companies. Some mothers I know, who fully intended to breast feed their children, resented these "free" gifts.

[DialecticMaterialist]

btw sucking at something put into a babies mouth is an automatic, instinctive reaction. Like a knee jerk, the baby cannot help it. The claim is thus obviously bogus if it is saying the contrary.

http://www.helioshealth.com/baby/first_day/reflex.html

When newborn babies are given bottles, they are less able to suckle well.

That premise really demands some evidence.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by athon
Breastfeeding for an infant uses a different sucking motion than it does for a bottle. This is well documented, and most mothers who have used both methods can back it up.

The sucking reflex is both innate and learned. Infants know to purse their lips and 'suck' using their tongue whenever anything is put near their mouth, however depending on how the milk is expressed, the quantity etc. the sucking reflex can change slightly, varying the use of the tongue and the soft palate.

Breasts naturally 'squirt' milk out in a particular fashion. Babies learn how to suckle in the first few months to respond to this. Babies who are bottle fed and then breast fed tend not to make accomodation for this extra pressure (the reasons aren't fully understood, but they seem to involve a gag reflex apparently - according to the midwife at the hospital I worked at). Going from breast to bottle is often an easier transfer, although not always without difficulties.

While this article does seem to attack from a capitalist angle, I do see where it is going. I would be more worried about the mother's milk, than the baby's response to suckling. Milk changes as the feeding process goes on, and what the baby gets on day one is very different to what it gets at six months.

Athon
(JK, once again, try doing some homework rather than stating just what you assume is the truth)

That is ridiculous.

JK

[DialecticMaterialist]

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?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
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?

All evidence I have is anecdotal, between my experience, other parents and advice given from medical staff.

Breast and bottle feeding are different. Switching between them requires both baby and the feeder to adapt. There is always some difficulty and frustration involved while this adaptation is happening.

I don't know how many of you have had kids, but you're already struggling to find your way with this new little person. Voluntarily adding difficulty is usually not on a new parent's agenda.

Still, I think that issue is fairly minimal. Like I said, if baby's hungry, it figures out how.

[Jon_in_london]

The reason powdered baby-milk is bad is that it doesnt help the babies immune systems along. Thus, breast fed babies tend to have a lower morbidity and mortality rate than bottle fed ones.

Theres also the big problem of the neccessity to sterilise or at least sanitise the water that bottled milk is made from.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Any evidence that this will cause huge damage? Also what about a combination of breast milk and bottled? I'm sure not all women who get free bottled milk use that solely.

[Jon_in_london]

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

[DialecticMaterialist]

That sounds a bit extreme Jon.

[Trollbane]

I wonder how much control Nestle even has on the subject.. As far as I can tell Nestle only provides hospitals with free milk substitute to be used at their decision. Considering the amount of starvation in the 3rd world countries, I cant help but wonder how well can a malnutritioned mother provide breast milk for her baby.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Any evidence that this will cause huge damage? Also what about a combination of breast milk and bottled? I'm sure not all women who get free bottled milk use that solely.

You should be able to find everything you need to know about breastfeeding compared to bottlefeeding here (http://www.breastfeeding.org/).

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
As for this baby milk thing, it sounds like an urban myth. Perhaps a prank, based on fears of american corporations, which according to some do bad things all the time, and fear of artificial products vs "traditional" country-style organic foods.


If it is an urban myth, it is a persistant one. My university was campaigning against Nestle back in 1993. I assume that there would be something on snopes if it was a myth. You can post the link yourself if you like, instead of yelling from the bleachers for once.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
That sounds a bit extreme Jon.

No. I grew up in the third world. Breast feeding is really much better for the baby than bottle feeding.

Better to give the milk powder to the mother and let her breast feed her baby.

[Mr Manifesto]

One area of interest (and as per the sites requirements, I'll credit www.breastfeeding.org) is this (http://www.breastfeeding.org/articles/child.html) link which mentions health and illness.


(Breastfeeding)Significantly lower rates of diarrhea, ear infections, lower respiratory illness, and childhood lymphomas occur among breastfed infants and children in the United States. Breastfeeding has also been reported to protect against necrotizing enterocolitis, bacteremia, meningitis, botulism, sudden infant death syndrome, urinary tract infection, early childhood caries, juvenile diabetes, and inflammatory bowel disease. Health care costs to federal and state governments, and private healthcare systems because of NOT breastfeeding run into billions of dollars.

This site has not been tacked up by a group of quacks. So it remains that the only argument is, are Nestle in fact encouraging mothers to use their product over breastfeeding in African hospitals? As I've mentioned, if they aren't it shouldn't be hard to locate the relevant debunking information (especially since we are after all on a skeptic's forum).

[Soubrette]

If a mother doesn't breast feed regularly her milk supply will dry up. There are many people in the UK who try combination feeding but they often fail because the less you breast feed the less milk you produce. The baby then seems hungry so you supplement with a bottle thus starting a cycle.

Once she is dry then she stays dry. Otherwise bottle feeding mothers would spend a good deal of time walking round with painful swollen and engorged breasts.

Jon is also right - bottle feeding does not pass on any antibodies to the baby and there is the problem of a regular clean water supply.

Anecdotally - I breast fed my first child and tried to get her to bottle feed expressed milk on the odd occasion. It was an abysmal failure. You could get the teat into her mouth but she would just roll it around. I even tried squirting some of the milk on her tongue - she still didn't cotton on how to get that milk out. It could have been for a number of reasons of course but it sure looked like she couldn't suck on a rubber teat having been used to breast feeding.

Athon is also correct in that a mothers milk changes as her baby grows. For the first few days the milk is basically colostrum which then changes after a few days. Here's a link for anyone interested:

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

When I was pregnant we were told that this colostrum was of great benefit to the baby - even if later you started to bottle feed.

I'd love to know exactly what junk science the thread starter was referring to:)

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

[Jon_in_london]

www.unsystem.org/scn/Publications/foundation4dev/03Population.pdf+%22breast+feeding%22+%22bottle+fe eding%22+africa&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:O19IVlDMegkJ:From this Link



By 2020 populations in urbanareas of developing countries,where malnutrition iscommonplace,may double to reach 3.4 billion.In manypoor and congested urban areas,diarrheal diseases andundernutrition are frequent because of poor foodhygiene,inadequate water supplies and waste disposal,poor housing,and the declining prevalence and dura-tion of breast-feeding and the corresponding increase in bottle-feeding

Also

....Bottle fed babies are 14 times more likely to die than those that are breast fed.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The link does not work.

[Jon_in_london]

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

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Soubrette
<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 (http://www.usaid.gov/pop_health/cs/csbfeeding.htm)


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]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
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? :p

Sorry, poor taste :D

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

[Jon_in_london]

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


:eek: how the hell would that word? :eek:

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
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]

Originally posted by 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?

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]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
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 :p

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.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by 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.

Indeed but what I'm trying to show is that choosing to use formula milk in general means that the choice to use breast milk is vastly diminished.

In fact it takes about three weeks for the hormone that makes a woman lactate to return to normal which means that if you bottle feed exclusively for the first three weeks then your breast milk dries up. It is very hard to reinstate this - it can be done but mostly with drugs.

This means that in general you don't try bottle feeding for a few weeks - decide it's not for you and go on to breast feeding.

Do you accept that to be true? Forget the nestlé stuff for a second - I want to make sure we're on the same page with every thing else :)

Sou

[thaiboxerken]

This means that in general you don't try bottle feeding for a few weeks - decide it's not for you and go on to breast feeding.

Do you accept that to be true? Forget the nestlé stuff for a second - I want to make sure we're on the same page with every thing else

It could be true, I'm no expert. If it is true, I still don't see anything unethical here.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Bottle feeding and breast feeding are based on the same principle. You stick a hungry baby's lips to the nipple and they suck away.

JK

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

That's NOT how it works with mon. Would you like to revisit this, do some homework, and tell us how it's really done?

That is, if you can read words like that and not explode.

P.S. It's only 2 data points but ours both used natural and bottle feeding. Both prefered natural by a very large margin, and seemed to have little trouble figuring out which was which. Your milage may vary.

[gethane]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Bottle feeding and breast feeding are based on the same principle. You stick a hungry baby's lips to the nipple and they suck away.

JK

Sir, do you every consider just NOT TALKING when you have nothing useful to say? Since you are a man, I'm POSITIVE you have not breastfed. I, on the other hand, have breastfed 3 children, and can assure you that the mechanics involved in breastfeeding vs. bottle feeding are QUITE different. I'll not talk about penises as if I have experience, if you'll not talk about breastfeeding as if you do.

Since you have no personal experience OR scientific evidence to back up your claim, please shut up.

[jj]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


how is that an old wives tale? clearly a bottle's nipple was modeled on a human nipple. and anyone who has seen an infant put against a lactating woman's breast knows that they "suck away" if they are pregnant. gosh, i never thought i would find myself defending JK.

Err, you clearly never helped a mother breastfeed or milked a cow. (No, the two are not the same, but some of the same principles apply.)

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That is ridiculous.

JK

No, it's right. You really ought to shake off some of that insane ignorance. Telling people that the two are the same does have the potential to hurt someone, too.

Although the most likely person it would hurt would be a nursing mom, and from your prior disgusting behavior, you probably don't much care about that.

[jj]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
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?

Perhaps you should just go to a good, scientific (not one of the many nutcase) book on breastfeeding. Learn how it works. Athon is dead on.

My experience is also "anecdotal" in that I'm a guy, but I got to help my spouse cope, twice.

The two simply do not work the same. A bottle does not "let down", it just squirts. A bottle does not require anything like the same sized mouth opening or the same mouth and tongue behavior.

Before you shoot your mouth off more, GO READ UP. The material is there to read.

Perhaps if you did a search on "breast feeding" and "oxytocin" you might find something on the net, dunno.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Junk science.


Encouraging mothers to try bottle feeding before or in conjunction with breast feeding is the junk science here.

[jj]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

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


GO read something about how the process works. AFTER you do that, maybe you'll understand.

It's actually a bit more complicated than you seem to think.

[jj]

Originally posted by 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?

I don't think anyone is arguing that bottle feeding is worth than nothing.

What's your point? Some people must bottle feed. Some people just can't, for whatever reason, breast-feed. (Even "standard" couples.)

[jj]

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

You're claiming a negative, Ken? I think you might want to think that over again, both from logical and medical grounds.

If the mom dries up (with first children quite a few moms have trouble getting lactation going well, btw) she MUST.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
This means that in general you don't try bottle feeding for a few weeks - decide it's not for you and go on to breast feeding.

Do you accept that to be true? Forget the nestlé stuff for a second - I want to make sure we're on the same page with every thing else

It could be true, I'm no expert. If it is true, I still don't see anything unethical here.

Ok - but we both agree that once bottle feeding has been chosen then there really is no realistic way that the vast majority of mothers can change their mind.

So really the description of being dependent on the bottle is true, yes?

Sou

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by jj

If the mom dries up (with first children quite a few moms have trouble getting lactation going well, btw) she MUST.

....and formula is given away more freely to expectant parents of first children. I would estimate we got 1.5-2 times the amount of free formula for my firstborn than my second.

For the record, both of my children, my wife never was entirely comfortable with breast feeding. We did it for 2 months for the first and 1 month for the second. Our firstborn had difficulty because she would fall asleep without filling herself, and our son was colicky, and wanted to eat constantly. We supplimented breastfeeding with bottle feeding so she could get some rest.

Neither of our children had too much trouble eating from either source, once they figured out the difference.

[thaiboxerken]

You're claiming a negative, Ken? I think you might want to think that over again, both from logical and medical grounds.

It's a claim based on fact. One doesn't have to buy Nestle forumula, there are other companies out there.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Ok - but we both agree that once bottle feeding has been chosen then there really is no realistic way that the vast majority of mothers can change their mind.

So really the description of being dependent on the bottle is true, yes?

Sou

No, because a mother doesn't need to try the bottle for more than a session.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


No, because a mother doesn't need to try the bottle for more than a session.

Do we have any evidence she is given just one free session thai? I would say economically that would not be in the company's best interests.

Sou

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Do we have any evidence she is given just one free session thai? I would say economically that would not be in the company's best interests.

Sou

I'm trying to find some facts on how many feeding sessions a mother would expect to get - I'm not able to at the moment but here's a report in the British Medical Journal.

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7381/127?ijkey=wdTivVGidY5Bo#T2

It seems clear that Nestlé has in the past (ie since 2001) breached the WHO guidelines on marketing formula milk.

Sou

[Soubrette]

Here's where maybe that fact about baby's suckling:

http://www.gvnews.net/html/DailyNews/alert3195.html

From that article:

'When newborn babies are given a bottle, they are less able to suckle well,' said James Grant, executive officer of the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef). 'This makes breastfeeding failure likely, and the baby is then dependent on artificial milk.

the interesting thing is for what proportion of babies this is the case.

There is also some descriptions of alleged Nestlé practices when handing out their free samples

Sou

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Do we have any evidence she is given just one free session thai? I would say economically that would not be in the company's best interests.

Sou

LOL. I think you are subtly accusing Nestle of forcing people to try their product for a period of time. The simple fact is, if a mom decided to quit using the baby forumula after one session, Nestle cannot force her to. They might encourage her to give the formula a chance, but I see nothing unethical about that.

Since these products are being offered in a hospital, maybe we should be blaming the doctors for not educating parents about breastfeeding.

A mother can try Nestle for just one session, if she so chooses. A mother can also not even try Nestle.

[thaiboxerken]

This is hilarious, the conspiracy theories are just propagating now. The product is free and it is not being forced upon people.

If anything, instead of fighting Nestle and trying to boycott them, maybe these people should be educating would-be mothers about the benefits of breast feeding.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


LOL. I think you are subtly accusing Nestle of forcing people to try their product for a period of time. The simple fact is, if a mom decided to quit using the baby forumula after one session, Nestle cannot force her to. They might encourage her to give the formula a chance, but I see nothing unethical about that.

Since these products are being offered in a hospital, maybe we should be blaming the doctors for not educating parents about breastfeeding.

A mother can try Nestle for just one session, if she so chooses. A mother can also not even try Nestle.

No thai - I am simply trying to say that if I were selling a product it would make sense for me to offer it for a period of time :rolleyes:

You are the one with the conspiracy theory - that these concerns are merely "junk science" and that it's all a conspiracy against the kind hearted Nestlé

Sou

[michaellee]

What's your point? Some people must bottle feed. Some people just can't, for whatever reason, breast-feed. (Even "standard" couples.)

Just a failed attempt to slide in an off-the-subject perspective others, I thought, might see or actually have experienced.

Personally, I can't remember if my mother breast fed or bottle fed me; I never asked and she never told me. Logic dictates breast feeding in all cases if possible.

What is 'formula' anyway?
Why, after weaning, do most children switch/continue to drink milk from a COW, and then as adults?

Could we test? Maybe a comparison of breast-fed/IQ to bottle-fed/IQ or something similar.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


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

That's NOT how it works with mon. Would you like to revisit this, do some homework, and tell us how it's really done?

That is, if you can read words like that and not explode.

P.S. It's only 2 data points but ours both used natural and bottle feeding. Both prefered natural by a very large margin, and seemed to have little trouble figuring out which was which. Your milage may vary.

If you have a hungry baby (not spoiled), the baby will grab the nearest nipple and suck away to be fed. It is laughable to say otherwise.

JK

[thaiboxerken]

" No thai - I am simply trying to say that if I were selling a product it would make sense for me to offer it for a period of time "

And I'm pointing out that a mother need not use it for that entire period, or at all.

"You are the one with the conspiracy theory - that these concerns are merely "junk science" and that it's all a conspiracy against the kind hearted Nestlé"

Your arguement is hardly rational. This is as stupid as the theist claiming that it's atheists that have faith there is no god.

I am not saying Nestle is kind-hearted, in fact, I'm sure that they promote their product with the intent of gaining profit and PR. I do not agree with the conspiracy theory that Nestle is doing the equivalent of trying to get people hooked on crack-cocaine.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If you have a hungry baby (not spoiled), the baby will grab the nearest nipple and suck away to be fed. It is laughable to say otherwise.

JK

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

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
" No thai - I am simply trying to say that if I were selling a product it would make sense for me to offer it for a period of time "

And I'm pointing out that a mother need not use it for that entire period, or at all.

"You are the one with the conspiracy theory - that these concerns are merely "junk science" and that it's all a conspiracy against the kind hearted Nestlé"

Your arguement is hardly rational. This is as stupid as the theist claiming that it's atheists that have faith there is no god.

I am not saying Nestle is kind-hearted, in fact, I'm sure that they promote their product with the intent of gaining profit and PR. I do not agree with the conspiracy theory that Nestle is doing the equivalent of trying to get people hooked on crack-cocaine.

Hehe - I wondered how a taste of your own medicine would go down :p

I'm not giving a rational argument because I portrayed your position as one of assuming Nestlé to be acting out of the kindness of their heart.

Yet your extreme crack cocaine analogy is pure logic :D

What do you say of the fact that women in third world countries are often not educated to the standard that we are in the West - would you agree with that one?

Sou

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by gethane


Sir, do you every consider just NOT TALKING when you have nothing useful to say? Since you are a man, I'm POSITIVE you have not breastfed. I, on the other hand, have breastfed 3 children, and can assure you that the mechanics involved in breastfeeding vs. bottle feeding are QUITE different. I'll not talk about penises as if I have experience, if you'll not talk about breastfeeding as if you do.

Since you have no personal experience OR scientific evidence to back up your claim, please shut up.

You're pushing superstitious mythology on the forum. A hungry baby is going to breast feed with no problem.

Let me ask you this, oh angry womyn, were there 'baby bottles' in 1850? What about 1900?

In comparison, what you are basically saying is that I couldn't cook a microwave TV dinner in a wood stove. Get real.

BTW, I will talk about womyn's breasts whenever I feel like it, hon.

JK

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by michaellee
Could we test? Maybe a comparison of breast-fed/IQ to bottle-fed/IQ or something similar.

Funny you should mention that: UK Study: Breast-feeding Increases Babies' IQ
(http://www.mc.uky.edu/mcpr/news/1999/September/breastfeeding.htm)
Breast-fed babies’ IQ is three to five points higher than that of formula-fed babies, according to researchers at the University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center. The findings are published in the October issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

James W. Anderson, M.D., professor of medicine and clinical nutrition in the UK College of Medicine, found that breast-feeding, compared to formula feeding, is associated with significantly higher levels of cognitive development. The difference increases the longer a baby is breast-fed, and low birth weight babies receive the greatest benefits.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If you have a hungry baby (not spoiled), the baby will grab the nearest nipple and suck away to be fed. It is laughable to say otherwise.

JK

When you have some experience, first or second-hand, get back to us. Until then, you stand dismissed as a mean, malicious, seriously ill-informed spewer of quackery.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

You're pushing superstitious mythology on the forum. A hungry baby is going to breast feed with no problem.

Let me ask you this, oh angry womyn, were there 'baby bottles' in 1850? What about 1900?

(noted that the effect of baby bottles on nursing infants is the issue here, and Jedi's introduction of when they occur in his assertion that "hungry baby..." is purely dishonest, unethical, and malicious, since the point is that they HAVE been introduced.)

Soubrette, Gethane, he has no knowledge whatsoever, and his only intent is to demeam others here.

So don't try to be reasonable. Flaming him would be reasonable, trying to reason with him is just wasting everyone's time.

Jedi, your statements are false, irresponsible and potentially dangerous (except that I think nobody is stupid enough to take your advice and claims seriously).

(edited to cure typokinesis)

[Soubrette]

jj

actually he has a point - one of the observations made on the website is that a baby started on a bottle has difficulty changing to the nipple.

This leads to a higher likelihood of breast feeding failure and thus reliance on bottle feeding.

The question is - is this junk science?

I can find no studies but I can find websites that don't recommend mixing both until breast feeding is well established plus an explanation on why the suckle reflex is different for a bottle or a breast.

So far thai has come up with nothing to support his view that it is junk science.

As to JK's pov - he isn't the only one propagating it on this thread. For what it's worth I think that when breast feeding is the only option then families tend to be extended and there is a lot of support for them. Breast feeding is often painful hard work - that support helps you through.

Many years ago we didn't have oven or cookers but I'll bet if I dropped the average person in the middle of a forest they couldn't cook themselves a meal - knowledge is lost.

The rooting reflex is instinctive, much about the rest of breast feeding needs to be learned :p

Sou

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


When you have some experience, first or second-hand, get back to us. Until then, you stand dismissed as a mean, malicious, seriously ill-informed spewer of quackery.

You are just a mean old bastard JJ. How many 'bottles' were babies sucking on in 1850?

Momma's tit, that's all. How's that for experience, chump.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj

(noted that the effect of baby bottles on nursing infants is the issue here, and Jedi's introduction of when they occur in his assertion that "hungry baby..." is purely dishonest, unethical, and malicious, since the point is that they HAVE been introduced.)

Soubrette, Gethane, he has no knowledge whatsoever, and his only intent is to demeam others here.

So don't try to be reasonable. Flaming him would be reasonable, trying to reason with him is just wasting everyone's time.

Jedi, your statements are false, irresponsible and potentially dangerous (except that I think nobody is stupid enough to take your advice and claims seriously).

(edited to cure typokinesis)

Hey there thug, answer the question. How many babies were sucking on bottles in 1850?

You are pushing pseudo-science. Mythology. Superstition.

If you used critical thinking (yeah, right) instead of your BS, in the human timeline, how many human babies out of all that existed sucked on plastic nipples attached to baby bottles?

Answer the question.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Soubrette
As to JK's pov - he isn't the only one propagating it on this thread.

Point of view? Try historical fact.

Bottle feeding babies was just a way for moms to not have to have babies rip their nipples up while nursing them, or to provide womyn with certain inadequacies the ability to feed the children they spawn.

But bottle feeding then turned into a multinational conglomerate of Feminazism where breast feeding became politically incorrect. The boycott of Nestle is just to get the 'product' for free (socialism). That is why the moron said the women couldn't breastfeed. All pregnant women can breastfeed unless they suffer from inadequacies. If they couldn't, the human race wouldn't be here. Bottle feeding has only existed for a microscopic blip in the human timeline.

The bottom line is this--hungry babies will feed on any nipple that provides them food.

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Soubrette
jj

actually he has a point - one of the observations made on the website is that a baby started on a bottle has difficulty changing to the nipple.

This leads to a higher likelihood of breast feeding failure and thus reliance on bottle feeding.

The question is - is this junk science?


That's a good question. I can only offer two close personal anecdotal experiences and a lot of hearsay.

On the other hand, you have to admit that running a real experiment has hideous ethical experiments. What do you do?

Now, I can see that mom's supply will start to wane if she doesn't feed for a day and doesn't pump. That, however, is a different (although for some women extremely serious) issue. Some women lactate easily, some don't. A woman who doesn't lactate easily can't afford to pass up a day in some cases, and yes, I do know some examples of that. (Fortunately not ours...)

In the two cases I know of, both babies adapted very nicely, BUT one had to be reminded to "get it all in" (you'll know what I mean if you've done this or helped with it) every time she went back to the nipple.

I can imagine that some babies would be much more stubborn. Also, both of ours were healthy and well-fed. I can imagine problems when an infant is weak.

But do I have any cites to good work? No. I've seen the stuff that comes out of some of the breast-feeding groups, but frankly it seems, well, lacking, to say the least, in rigor, and I can't credit it even anecdotally.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You are just a mean old bastard JJ. How many 'bottles' were babies sucking on in 1850?

Momma's tit, that's all. How's that for experience, chump.

JK

You try to justify your idiocy by spouting irrelevancies.

The question is NOT "did children breastfeed in 1850". The question is "does bottle feeding cause problems for breastfeeding"?

SINCE that is the question, it is forthrightly dishonest of you to raise the issue of what infants fed from in the 1850's. If you want to even try to be equitable, let's introduce the death rate, let's introduce the lack of medical issues, sepsis, etc. If you want to compare, let's compare apples to apples. HOW DOES THE INFANT DEATH RATE FROM THEN COMPARE TO NOW?

Of course, since you haven't bothered to look up any data, Jedi, I think you would, if you were wise, back off and admit your egregious mistakes.

But you won't. You aren't able to admit you're wrong.

[Jedi Knight]

Here is how the breast-feeding pseudo-science scam works.

1) Elevate the threshold of a baby's nutritional requirements so that no matter how much milk a pregnant mom's breasts dispenses, it is never enough.

2) Teach moms that bottle-feeding is easier and provides the nutritional threshold.

3) Womyn will follow the feminist instructions thinking that breast-feeding is actually starving the baby. No new mom wants her kids to go hungry. Plus, feminists will make the mom feel that there is something 'toxic' in her milk, thus pushing moms towards bottle-feeding. No mom wants her own milk to poison her newborn baby, right? Womyn buy into that fear-marketing easily.

4) Perpetuate the myth.

5) Hammer corporations for not giving bottled formula away for free. (socialism). Claim scientific evidence (pseudo science) that breast-feeding is dangerous and malnutrition will result.

6) Perpetuate the overall scam and junk-science.

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


But bottle feeding then turned into a multinational conglomerate of Feminazism where breast feeding became politically incorrect. The boycott of Nestle is just to get the 'product' for free (socialism).

While I think your usual dishonest association of anything you disagree with as "socialism" is typically inflamatory and unethical of you, I will say that I find the call to boycott a bit much.

I trust you have noticed that I have not suggested that anyone join the boycott.

I will continue to point out that you have demonstrated plainly that you have no understanding whatsoever of breastfeeding or the relative complexity of the process, and that furthermore you have, in your usual abusive fashion, used deliberately coarse, insulting language.

Your ignorance does not add to the defense of Nestle, Jedi. If anything, you're arguing against them by trying to help them.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


You try to justify your idiocy by spouting irrelevancies.

The question is NOT "did children breastfeed in 1850". The question is "does bottle feeding cause problems for breastfeeding"?

SINCE that is the question, it is forthrightly dishonest of you to raise the issue of what infants fed from in the 1850's. If you want to even try to be equitable, let's introduce the death rate, let's introduce the lack of medical issues, sepsis, etc. If you want to compare, let's compare apples to apples. HOW DOES THE INFANT DEATH RATE FROM THEN COMPARE TO NOW?

Of course, since you haven't bothered to look up any data, Jedi, I think you would, if you were wise, back off and admit your egregious mistakes.

But you won't. You aren't able to admit you're wrong.

You have bought into feminazi myth and superstition. Tell me JJ, if you were a starving baby and someone planted a big fat, milk-inflated nipple in your face, what would you do? You would start chowing down.

JK

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by jj


When you have some experience, first or second-hand, get back to us. Until then, you stand dismissed as a mean, malicious, seriously ill-informed spewer of quackery.

I would like to make a distinction between what I said and what JK is saying.

what I said
From ancedotal evidence, a baby can and will figure out the difference between bottle and breast and suck accordingly.

I didn't intend to imply that this learning process is easy, nor did I intend to imply that the process is not stressful for baby and the rest of the family. All I intended was that the baby will learn how to survive as a matter of necessity.

...and note I said "survive", not "thrive".

editted to fix a typo

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


While I think your usual dishonest association of anything you disagree with as "socialism" is typically inflamatory and unethical of you, I will say that I find the call to boycott a bit much.

I trust you have noticed that I have not suggested that anyone join the boycott.

I will continue to point out that you have demonstrated plainly that you have no understanding whatsoever of breastfeeding or the relative complexity of the process, and that furthermore you have, in your usual abusive fashion, used deliberately coarse, insulting language.

Your ignorance does not add to the defense of Nestle, Jedi. If anything, you're arguing against them by trying to help them.

JJ, you are just a goofy moron, a poster-boy for why we need skeptics in this world.

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
3) Womyn will follow the feminist instructions thinking that breast-feeding is actually starving the baby.

FEMINIST? FEMININIST INSTRUCTIONS to bottlefeed?

Jedi, you are on another planet.

Quack, Quack, Quack.

Now you're just "making it all up" so you can slam women again.

Your basic misogyny is appalling.

Get help.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Tell me JJ, if you were a starving baby and someone planted a big fat, milk-inflated nipple in your face, what would you do? You would start chowing down.

JK

Once again, you show that you have no understanding whatsoever of how the process works.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Soubrette


What do you say of the fact that women in third world countries are often not educated to the standard that we are in the West - would you agree with that one?

Sou

I would agree. But this still doesn't mean that what Nestle does is unethical. Mothers should be asking their care-providers about breastfeeding vs bottle. One needs not be educated to ask questions.

[jj]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


I would like to make a distinction between what I said and what JK is saying.



I didn't intend to imply that this learning process is easy, not did I intend to imply that the process is not stressful for baby and the rest of the family. All I intended was that the baby will learn how to survive as a matter of necessity.

...and note I said "survive", not "thrive".

My experience is that you're quite right for healthy babies. However my experience has a sample size of 2.

I would have more concerns with the mom's milk supply, especially if she was a first-time mom.

And I understand why anyone would want to distance themself from JK's ranting. No problems there.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


JJ, you are just a goofy moron, a poster-boy for why we need skeptics in this world.

JK

Your lack of substance to reply with is noted.

Please take your misogyny somewhere else.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Soubrette


So far thai has come up with nothing to support his view that it is junk science.


I didn't have to, you did it for me when you said that the website didn't tell all the facts about the breast feeding issue. The website implies that all babies cannot go back to breast feeding once starting the bottle. This is junk science, they did not disclose that it's only some babies.

1. The site has an agenda
2. The site posts selective facts about the science of bottlefeeding and breastfeeding.
3. The site tries to invoke fear and distrust.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You have bought into feminazi myth and superstition. Tell me JJ, if you were a starving baby and someone planted a big fat, milk-inflated nipple in your face, what would you do? You would start chowing down.

JK

Oh, I must add.


Jedi, produce evidence that the LaLeche league is not feminist.

Now, I didn't say "scientific", I said "feminist".

Your lies roll in like the tide, Jedi. You're incapable of honest discourse.

[Soubrette]

I hope you realise that we are now talking about formula milk in general?

Do you agree with me that women in third world countries are less educated than those here?

And I've also come up with some links that show that it is not total junk science. That there is a different suckle reflex for bottle and breast.

Is it some babies or is it a majority?

I've also come up with the conclusive fact that women who don't breast feed regularly will have their milk supply dry up.

Answer the first question thai and see where we can go from there :)

Sou

[thaiboxerken]

"I hope you realise that we are now talking about formula milk in general?"

Really? I started the thread with the complete intent of talking about that website, not whether breastmilk is better or worse thatn forumula.

"Do you agree with me that women in third world countries are less educated than those here?"

Yes, but I don't agree that they are stupid. Even the uneducated should be asking their doctors questions about bottle vs breastfeeding.

"And I've also come up with some links that show that it is not total junk science. That there is a different suckle reflex for bottle and breast."

You've shown links that show what they present is fact, however, your links also show that what they present is not the entire picture. This is one of the methods of junk-science, not really fabricating evidence, but not giving out a clear picture of the science.

"Is it some babies or is it a majority?"

Who knows? You're the one that said "some". I was asking about the science of the website because I'm not an expert. Now you've convinced me that the site does use selective science to promote their agenda.

"I've also come up with the conclusive fact that women who don't breast feed regularly will have their milk supply dry up."

Yep.

"Answer the first question thai and see where we can go from there."

I've answered all of them.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


Oh, I must add.


Jedi, produce evidence that the LaLeche league is not feminist.

Now, I didn't say "scientific", I said "feminist".

Your lies roll in like the tide, Jedi. You're incapable of honest discourse.

Sure JJ, spam the forum. You are pathetic. But what is even more pathetic is the pseudo-science you are pushing.

JK

[Soubrette]

Sure but I want to get right back to basics so we can see where we disagree or we don't.

Is it reasonable to assume that poorer people are influenced by advertising in the same way as us? For them to assume that as the West is affluent - that its mores and fashions are something to aspire to?

And I convinced you that that website had an agenda and was using junk science? It's my impression that you had made up your mind and merely used my words against me. I honestly don't know either - some babies do have problems using both breast and bottle I know that anecdotally. What percentage I don't know. But this isn't the only issue with pushing formula milk in third world countries.

Thanks for answering all the question though :)

Sou

[gethane]

ahh, so much nicer.. ignore is a lovely feature.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Soubrette

(snip)
And I've also come up with some links that show that it is not total junk science. That there is a different suckle reflex for bottle and breast.

Is it some babies or is it a majority?
(snip)


I would estimate that the makers of Enfamil and Isomil gave us a retail value totalling $40-50 of free product, per child. Considering much of the material was "standard issue" from the doctor's office and hospital, it's safe to assume that these manufacturers are spending very large amounts of money to market to expecting parents.

This would imply that the percentage is large enough to make these companies feel it's worth it, even though most patients in the US are told quite directly from doctors and other medical professionals that breast feeding is the best for your baby.

[Jedi Knight]

This got spammed so I am reposting it:

Here is how the breast-feeding pseudo-science scam works.

1) Elevate the threshold of a baby's nutritional requirements so that no matter how much milk a pregnant mom's breasts dispenses, it is never enough.

2) Teach moms that bottle-feeding is easier and provides the nutritional threshold.

3) Womyn will follow the feminist instructions thinking that breast-feeding is actually starving the baby. No new mom wants her kids to go hungry. Plus, feminists will make the mom feel that there is something 'toxic' in her milk, thus pushing moms towards bottle-feeding. No mom wants her own milk to poison her newborn baby, right? Womyn buy into that fear-marketing easily.

4) Perpetuate the myth.

5) Hammer corporations for not giving bottled formula away for free. (socialism). Claim scientific evidence (pseudo science) that breast-feeding is dangerous and malnutrition will result.

6) Perpetuate the overall scam and junk-science.

JK

[thaiboxerken]

Sure but I want to get right back to basics so we can see where we disagree or we don't.

We agree that breastfeeding is better than bottle feeding in most cases, i think. I also agree that it could be hard for some babies to go back to breastfeeding after trying a bottle for several weeks. I agree that it could be hard to do both bottle and breast feeding.

I don't agree that Nestle is doing anything unethical by offering a product for free in a hospital for PR and demonstrative purposes.


Is it reasonable to assume that poorer people are influenced by advertising in the same way as us?

Yes.

For them to assume that as the West is affluent - that its mores and fashions are something to aspire to?

If that's how they want to think, then they are only victims of their own values.

And I convinced you that that website had an agenda and was using junk science? It's my impression that you had made up your mind and merely used my words against me. I honestly don't know either - some babies do have problems using both breast and bottle I know that anecdotally. What percentage I don't know. But this isn't the only issue with pushing formula milk in third world countries.

The website has an agenda, that's obvious as they are asking people to boycott the company. Because of this agenda, the science should be looked at more critically, as agenda-based sites often have junk-science.

Think of this. If someone is selling bottled water and advertises that their water is a natural diarrhetic and anti-oxidant, it's junk-science. Heres' why, because they aren't disclosing that all water has the same properties.


If they really think bottlefeeding is wrong, shouldn't they be attacking ALL forumula companies and bottle manufacturers?

[Soubrette]

Regarding the advertising. I think most people are susceptible to advertising. And most people want to better themselves.

If a person saw pictures of healthy bouncy baby being fed bottled milk. Don't you think it would be reasonable to assume that bottled milk is a really good thing for your baby? Especially if they are western pictures where you may even be aware that in general they are richer and healthier than you?

And I think Nestlé and Danone are the main two companies that contravene the WHO guidelines re formula milk - I provided a link to the British Medical Journal regarding a study done on this and the effects of the free samples.

I wish I could find something which actually explained what these free samples were. I think here we are thinking totally different things. You, I think, are assuming they get one free sample and that's it. I'm assuming they get bottled milk free for the whole time they are in hospital - which would be a least a couple of days. I can't find anything to say which of us has the right idea though.

Sou

[thaiboxerken]

If a person saw pictures of healthy bouncy baby being fed bottled milk. Don't you think it would be reasonable to assume that bottled milk is a really good thing for your baby? Especially if they are western pictures where you may even be aware that in general they are richer and healthier than you?

Not really, it would be reasonable to assume that it's not poison though. I see lots of women that hang out with the beer-drinkers in the commercials, but I don't expect that drinking beer attracts supermodels.



I think the free samples are offered for the term of the maturnity visit, but I don't know.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[b]Not really, it would be reasonable to assume that it's not poison though. I see lots of women that hang out with the beer-drinkers in the commercials, but I don't expect that drinking beer attracts supermodels.

I think the free samples are offered for the term of the maturnity visit, but I don't know.

You do see that advertising in general sells us more than just the product though don't you?

For example - we used to have a Lucazade - a drink you drank if you were poorly. Now it's been revitalised as a sporting drink.

Tango - an in the doldrums orangeade drink - revitalised as a fun zany drink.

Here people pay an awful lot of money for jeans - because they sell us a lifestyle. So much so that the jean manufacturers actually sued the supermarkets for stocking their jeans more cheaply - because it cheapened the brand.

Imagine the pressure of wanting to do the absolute best for your child? Of wanting to buy into the Western lifestyle? Do you honestly not see how persuasive that in itself must be? Then to be spoonfed this at the hospital? Look how easy bottlefeeding is etc etc?

Is it unreasonable to make that choice for what seem like all the best reasons?

A choice that we both agree that once made is difficult to change.

Sou

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, advertisement often sells their product as being more than it is. I agree.

But I don't agree that we should protect people from advertisements. Nestle giving out free samples is just a form of advertisement.

"Is it unreasonable to make that choice for what seem like all the best reasons?"

If someone is stupid enough to use those reasons to bottlefeed vs breastfeed, it's their fault. I don't agree that we should protect stupid people from their own stupidity.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yes, advertisement often sells their product as being more than it is. I agree.

But I don't agree that we should protect people from advertisements. Nestle giving out free samples is just a form of advertisement.

"Is it unreasonable to make that choice for what seem like all the best reasons?"

If someone is stupid enough to use those reasons to bottlefeed vs breastfeed, it's their fault. I don't agree that we should protect stupid people from their own stupidity.

But what if these people aren't informed that "breast is best".

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.

If someone advertises the plus side of a produce and gives it away for free for a time yet no one is telling you of the negative side - does that make you stupid for assuming there is none?

Does it make you stupid if you don't ask the right questions and you just place your trust in what a multinational company says?

I would say that we are pretty sophisticated when it comes to advertising and pretty cynical too - yet we are taken in time and again

What chance do people in the third world have with less exposure to marketing ploys than we do?

Sou

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Sure JJ, spam the forum. You are pathetic. But what is even more pathetic is the pseudo-science you are pushing.

JK

Then, you claim that it's pseudo-science to point out that a woman's milk supply ceases if she does not breastfeed?

Quack, Quack, Quack!

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

3) Womyn will follow the feminist instructions thinking that breast-feeding is actually starving the baby.

False. Your absurd list wasn't "spammed off", it was laughed off. You need to learn the difference, child.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


False. Your absurd list wasn't "spammed off", it was laughed off. You need to learn the difference, child.

Look, the only 'laughing' is at you. What are you, 70? In a couple years you will be walking around with a geriatric diaper.

JK

[jj]

It is entirely, absolutely PATHETIC how some people, upon seeing a forum that they dislike question its' value, will deliberately, conciously, and maliciously attempt to further destroy the forum by posting obvious, pathetic misinformation, personal attacks, and in this case, overweening misogyny.

It seems that the quacking cowards who can't win the game want to try to take the football home with them now.

There's no point in responding to Jedi, folks, he's just using his postings to attack women and anyone who dares to expose his ignorant rantings about breastfeeding.

Ergo:

Chocolate Fudge:

2-3 Oz of unsweetened baker's chocolate broken into lumps.
2 c sugar
1 c evaporated (not sweetened) milk
2-3 tbsp butter
2 tbsp Karo
1/2 tsp salt.

Combine in heavy saucepan. Cook, stiring vigorously until sugar is disolved and chocolate is melted. When it starts to bubble, take electric mixer and THOROUGHLY beat it. (yes, that's atypical but I do it that way every time)

When it reaches medium-ball, or just short of medium-ball, take off the heat and put pan into a pan of icewater.

Allow to cool (slowly once it stops cooking) until it's warm to the touch.

Beat in
1 tbsp Stroh Inlander Rum
1/2-1 cup of chopped pecans, walnuts or (best) black walnuts
1 tsp vanilla

Beat until it starts to turn quite hazy on the top. At this point it will start thickening very rapidly

Turn into prepare 8x8 square pan, let cool more, and cut before it's completely set.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj
It is entirely, absolutely PATHETIC how some people, upon seeing a forum that they dislike question its' value, will deliberately, conciously, and maliciously attempt to further destroy the forum by posting obvious, pathetic misinformation, personal attacks, and in this case, overweening misogyny.

It seems that the quacking cowards who can't win the game want to try to take the football home with them now.

There's no point in responding to Jedi, folks, he's just using his postings to attack women and anyone who dares to expose his ignorant rantings about breastfeeding.

Ergo:

Chocolate Fudge:

2-3 Oz of unsweetened baker's chocolate broken into lumps.
2 c sugar
1 c evaporated (not sweetened) milk
2-3 tbsp butter
2 tbsp Karo
1/2 tsp salt.

Combine in heavy saucepan. Cook, stiring vigorously until sugar is disolved and chocolate is melted. When it starts to bubble, take electric mixer and THOROUGHLY beat it. (yes, that's atypical but I do it that way every time)

When it reaches medium-ball, or just short of medium-ball, take off the heat and put pan into a pan of icewater.

Allow to cool (slowly once it stops cooking) until it's warm to the touch.

Beat in
1 tbsp Stroh Inlander Rum
1/2-1 cup of chopped pecans, walnuts or (best) black walnuts
1 tsp vanilla

Beat until it starts to turn quite hazy on the top. At this point it will start thickening very rapidly

Turn into prepare 8x8 square pan, let cool more, and cut before it's completely set.

lol, the mean old bastard is now spamming the thread with recipes.

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


lol, the mean old bastard is now spamming the thread with recipes.

JK

"Don't be a jerk."

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


"Don't be a jerk."

huh?

JK

[thaiboxerken]

But what if these people aren't informed that "breast is best".

Then hold the doctors accountable.

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.

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.


If someone advertises the plus side of a produce and gives it away for free for a time yet no one is telling you of the negative side - does that make you stupid for assuming there is none?

Yes.

Does it make you stupid if you don't ask the right questions and you just place your trust in what a multinational company says?

Yes.

I would say that we are pretty sophisticated when it comes to advertising and pretty cynical too - yet we are taken in time and again

What chance do people in the third world have with less exposure to marketing ploys than we do?

Sou

I don't buy the claim that third world people are inherently stupid.

[thaiboxerken]

Putting JK on ignore is not wrong. Just a suggestion.

[Soubrette]

Thai - I am saying no one is inherently stupid to be taken in by advertising. However I do think that people not subjected to advertising in the way that we are can be manipulated by it. That doesn't make them stupid or even naive - we're all manipulated by it.

Why do you think we have regulations protecting children from certain types of advertising?

Why do you think that the advertising we are shown is increasingly more sophisticated? In the '50s they tried to dazzle us with science - now they sell us what we'd like to be.

Sou

[jj]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Putting JK on ignore is not wrong. Just a suggestion.

True, true, Ken, very true. But his poison keeps leaking out around the edges.

I think one problem that can arise is that, by giving people a week's worth of formula (not milk, btw, milk is BAD in this context, I sincerely HOPE it's formula!), some women may use it, and then try to breast-feed, but may have stopped (or not started) lactating, that some babies, especially weak or malnourished ones, may not "get it" with breastfeeding, and that such mothers can be saddled with going broke to keep their child alive.

I won't discuss intent. I have no idea how the material is offered, or presented. If it is presented at all, it MUST be presented with that explaination, each and every time, to each and every mother.

Now, in local terms, the formula is actually more calorically efficient, because the inefficiency is happening offstage (when the formula is made), which would seem to be good in an environment with limited nuitrition, BUT ONLY IF THE FORMULA CAN BE AFFORDED AND MIXED WITH SAFETY.

Some of the horror stories (they are anecdotes, indeed, but of the medically reliable kind, i.e. "this child died of a cholera-like illness due to mixing formula with unsanitary water") that have resulted must be considered, as well as the energy cost of always boiling water, etc.

You notice I'm not saying that the answers are cut-and-dried, they almost never are, but I think for most moms, under most circumstances, and even more importantly, for most infants, breast-feeding should be the method of choice.

I am annoyed by the article, because it glosses over several obvious, well-understood concerns and goes for the throat with a claim that looks histrionic on its face.

[thaiboxerken]

Why do you think we have regulations protecting children from certain types of advertising?

Because parents want the government to parent their children.


Why do you think that the advertising we are shown is increasingly more sophisticated? In the '50s they tried to dazzle us with science - now they sell us what we'd like to be.


And I find it a brilliant marketing technique.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Why do you think we have regulations protecting children from certain types of advertising?

Because parents want the government to parent their children.


Why do you think that the advertising we are shown is increasingly more sophisticated? In the '50s they tried to dazzle us with science - now they sell us what we'd like to be.


And I find it a brilliant marketing technique.

Interesting answer to the first - although I was thinking of cigarette adverts specifically.

And it is a brilliant marketing technique:) Why has it developed though, in your opinion? And why is it brilliant?

Sou

[thaiboxerken]

Because it works. People tend to want to do anything to be something "better" or whatever. They see the big boobed girls all over the beerdrinker, in the commercials, and they think that maybe it could happen to them. So they buy the beer.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Because it works. People tend to want to do anything to be something "better" or whatever. They see the big boobed girls all over the beerdrinker, in the commercials, and they think that maybe it could happen to them. So they buy the beer.

And are you still going to say that people are stupid? Because if you do aren't you going to have to say that people in general are stupid - because hot damn if we don't fall for this lifestyle thing every time ;)

(I actually think it's more sophisticated than that - the beer drinker doesn't think he'll get the big boobed girl necessarily - but that he is buying into the kind of lifestyle where other people might think that - hmm maybe that's not more sophisticated after all :D)

Sou

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, people are stupid. A person can be smart, but people are stupid.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yes, people are stupid. A person can be smart, but people are stupid.

So now we come back to the original question. People in general can be stupid - everywhere. Whether they should be protected from their stupidity is a question I'll come onto in a minute.

Bearing in mind that you think people are stupid - is it fair to expect a higher level of perception from someone in a third world country looking at buying into the richer more affluent western lifestyle - coupled with the images of healthy babies that bottle feeding is connected to?

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.

Again I don't want your reaction to the Drs and their responsibility in this - I'm interested only in the whether you feel these mothers are making reasonable choices based on the information they have.

Thanks for your patience here :)

Sou

[thaiboxerken]

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.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
lol. I am not trying to find out if breast-milk is better than forumula, I actually believe it is.

You must have found 'several' peer-reviewed journal articles then. ;)

-Who

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

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
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

"Yet your extreme crack cocaine analogy is pure logic :D"

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

-Who

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Soubrette


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]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
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 Whodini

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

Originally posted by jj


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

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]

Originally posted by Thanz
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]

Originally posted by jj


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]

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? :D

Mommy took care of them.

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


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]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

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]

Originally posted by Whodini
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]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

That is why boycotting Nestle is pretty hilarious superstition.


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

[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]

Originally posted by Whodini
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]

Originally posted by 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.

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. :)

Originally posted by jj


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]

Originally posted by jj


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]

Originally posted by jj


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. :D

JK

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Soubrette


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]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


/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.:D :D

[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.:D

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]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist



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 :p

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]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
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]

Originally posted by athon


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? :eek:

JK

[athon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

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]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


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

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 (http://www.who.int/child-adolescent-health/publications/NUTRITION/WHO_NUT_98.1.htm)
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 (http://bmj.com/archive/7075n1.htm)
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 (http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7261/591)
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 (http://bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7381/127?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&titleabstract=nestle&searchid=1055242050188_5421&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10&journalcode=bmj)
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 (http://www.nestle.dk/site_dir/nestle_dk/uploads/hrcc_corporate_business_principles_42.pdf) (* warning: pdf format *)
Nestlé believes that, as a general rule, legislation is the most effective safeguard of ethical conduct

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by athon


???

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]

Originally posted by athon



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]

Originally posted by 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.

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

[jj]

Originally posted by athon


???

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

He's seized on this lame excuse of "bottles didn't used to exist", since he's found out that he was dead wrong on his assertion that babies just know how to breast feed automatically.

Since there weren't any modern-style bottles in 1776, obviously there was no issue to be had in the first place. Simply point out that his entire diatribe is evasion, and don't give him any excuse to make something else up.

[Soubrette]

I'm away for a week :)

Just in case you think I'm running from you thai ;)

Sou

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


He's seized on this lame excuse of "bottles didn't used to exist", since he's found out that he was dead wrong on his assertion that babies just know how to breast feed automatically.

Since there weren't any modern-style bottles in 1776, obviously there was no issue to be had in the first place. Simply point out that his entire diatribe is evasion, and don't give him any excuse to make something else up.

You're nuts. Why do babies suck their thumbs? Because they are hard-wired to do it.

100,000 years of gut instinct.

You have jumped off the pier into the pseudo-logic abyss, JJ. If you think bottle feeding babies matters, I have a 24k gold bridge to sell you in east LA.

JK

[thaiboxerken]

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?

Because companies only sell products, Nestle isn't forcing this product on anyone.


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

Yes, someone could be doing something within the law and be unethical, as well as an ethical action being illegal.

Ethics is subjective.

[athon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You're nuts. Why do babies suck their thumbs? Because they are hard-wired to do it.

100,000 years of gut instinct.

You have jumped off the pier into the pseudo-logic abyss, JJ. If you think bottle feeding babies matters, I have a 24k gold bridge to sell you in east LA.

JK

You've missed the entire plot, JK. And what's absurd about that is that you're the one who started the argument in the first place.

Nobody is arguing that babies cannot suck bottles. What is being argued is the following:

* breast milk is superior to formula because it changes as the baby develops, has antibodies to give the infant passive immunity to diseases common in its community, is free.
* infant formula, while inferior, does nourish the infant enough for survival, and is useful should there be no or limited alternatives.
* going from breast to bottle is easier than from bottle to breast, simply on the basis of 'how' an infant learns to suckle. Unlike your narrow view of things, suckling might be innate but like all innate actions, there is a learned element to it.

I know it might be difficult to pervert this into your conspiracy-based world, but with effort I'm sure you can manage it.

Athon

[Thanz]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[b]I'm not agreeing that what Nestle is doing is unethical or devious.

They are paying doctors and nurses to recommend formula over breast milk, when the best evidence shows that breast milk is medically superior. They are sending marketing people into hospitals dressed as doctors and scientists to push formula on new mothers.

I'd say they are being both unethical and devious.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Yes, someone could be doing something within the law and be unethical, as well as an ethical action being illegal.

Ethics is subjective.

And what the Boycott Nestle capmaign is about is that if you feel Nestle are being unethical in what they are doing in African hospitals, boycott their products and make your feelings known until they act ethically again. So what's the problem?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Thanz


They are paying doctors and nurses to recommend formula over breast milk, when the best evidence shows that breast milk is medically superior. They are sending marketing people into hospitals dressed as doctors and scientists to push formula on new mothers.

I'd say they are being both unethical and devious.

Here's how I see it. They are paying giving incentives to recommend their product.

It's good marketing and business minded. Nothing unethical here.

If a doctor or nurse is unethical enough to promote the product over breast-feeding because they want the money, it's the fault of the doctor or nurse.

Is Nestle really putting a stipulation out there to promote their product over breastfeeding? I doubt it.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


And what the Boycott Nestle capmaign is about is that if you feel Nestle are being unethical in what they are doing in African hospitals, boycott their products and make your feelings known until they act ethically again. So what's the problem?

Their use of junk-science to promote their agenda.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Here's how I see it. They are paying giving incentives to recommend their product.

It's good marketing and business minded. Nothing unethical here.

If a doctor or nurse is unethical enough to promote the product over breast-feeding because they want the money, it's the fault of the doctor or nurse.

Is Nestle really putting a stipulation out there to promote their product over breastfeeding? I doubt it.

What you see as "Incentives" are better described as bribes. THe fact that people accept the bribe does not absolve the person offering the bribe from ethical obligations.

And yes, it seems that the payments are for recommending formula over breast milk. From Soubrette's link (as I quoted before):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]

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Their use of junk-science to promote their agenda. :confused: Which of their claims are junk science?

[thaiboxerken]

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.

Yea, but he's probably just fabricating stories.

Which of their claims are junk science?

The total sum of the site is junk-science, they state facts, but not enough for people to get a big picture.

At anyrate, I will not be boycotting Nestle.

I like their chocolate too much to do that.

-Who

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
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.

Yea, but he's probably just fabricating stories.
Do you have evidence for this accusation?

Which of their claims are junk science?

The total sum of the site is junk-science, they state facts, but not enough for people to get a big picture.

At anyrate, I will not be boycotting Nestle.

Claim 1: Nestlé and Wyeth provide free milk to maternity hospitals in the Third World so that newborn babies are routinely bottle-fed.
Well surely that's the whole point of providing free milk. It would be illogical to provide products free-of-charge other than the one you're trying to promote.

Claim 2: When newborn babies are given bottles, they are less able to suckle well. This makes breastfeeding failure likely. The baby is then dependent on artificial milk.
I'll be generous here and note that whilst switching between breastfeeding and bottle-feeding is problematic, it's not impossible; however, we have established in this thread that starting off with bottle-feeding does make breast-feeding failure likely, because the mother stops producing the hormones which enable her to lactate.

Claim 3: When the mother and baby leave hospital, the milk is no longer free. At home parents are forced to buy more milk, which can cost 50% of the family income.
Latham, M.C. (1997) Human nutrition in the developing world, Food and Nutrition Series 29 (http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/W0073e/w0073e03.htm#P1236_164805).
infant formula is extremely expensive relative to the incomes of poor families in developing countries. In India, Indonesia and Kenya it would cost a family 70 percent or more of the average labourer's wage to purchase adequate quantities of infant formula for a four-month-old baby.

Claim 4: Because the milk is so expensive the child is not fed enough. This leads to malnutrition.
Because of the high cost of breastmilk substitutes, the family purchases too little and tries to stretch it by using less than the recommended amounts of powdered formula per feed. The infant may be given the correct number of feedings and the recommended volume of liquid, but if it is too dilute each feed may be too low in energy and other nutrients to sustain optimal growth. The result is first growth faltering and then perhaps the slow development of nutritional marasmus.
Latham (ibid)

Claim 5: The water mixed with the formula is often contaminated. This leads to diarhhoea, malnutrition and often death. James Grant, Executive Officer of UNICEF, has said:
Every day some 3,000 to 4,000 infants die because they are denied access to adequate breast milk.

UNICEF: Infant and young child feeding (http://www.unicef.org/programme/nutrition/focus/infant.html)
If every baby were exclusively breastfed from birth, an estimated 1.5 million lives would be saved – and enhanced – every year.

Claim 6: 1.5 million babies die every year from unsafe bottle feeding.
See claim 5.

Claim 7: Breast feeding is free and safe and protects against infection - but companies know that unless they get babies on the bottle, they don't do business.
Um... well, true.

Bearing in mind the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (http://www.who.int/nut/documents/code_english.PDF) (pdf warning) adopted in 1981, which states:

5.2 manufacturers and distributors should not provide, directly or indirectly, to pregnant women, mothers of members of their families, samples of products within the scope of this code.

5.4 Manufacturers and distributors should not distribute to pregnant women or monthers or infants and young hilcren any goifts of articles which may promote the use of breast-milk substitutes or bottle-feeding.

6.6 Donations or low-price sales to institutions or organisaztions of supplies of infant formula or other products within the scope of this Code, whether for use in the institutions or for distribution outside them, may be made. Such supplies should only be used or distributed for infants who have to be fed on breast-milk substitutues. [...]Such donations or low-prixe sales should not be used by manufacturers or distributors as a sales inducement.

7.3 No financial or material inducements to promote products within the scope of this Code should be offered by manufacturers or distributors to health workers or members of their families [...]
so any "incentives" provided by Nestle since 1981 contravene these guidelines and are therefore unethical practice, what exactly is "the big picture", and how does it in anyway mitigate Nestle's activities?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
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.

Yea, but he's probably just fabricating stories.

Which of their claims are junk science?

The total sum of the site is junk-science, they state facts, but not enough for people to get a big picture.

At anyrate, I will not be boycotting Nestle.

Oh, now I get it. Their entire site is "junk science", but your claim that he is probably just fabricating stories underwent the strictest rigours of the scientific method. :rolleyes:

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Ove]

I have two healthy children, raised on bottles. NOT by choiche but my wife's breasts started bleeding (she has skin problems) and had to stop. This being said i think Nestle's practice is very irresponsible to say the least, also it is old news.

I remember long time ago seing a documentary about how Nestle acted in Ethiopia (i think it was). It was horrifying. They had made a campaign and actually convinced mom's that bottle feeding was far better (and more "hip")than breast feeding, they talked to a lot of women who all said the same.

Then we saw some of them prepare bottles and feed their babies and one started wondering how any of their children survived. As i said i was doing bottles myself back then and a caught a number of grave errors. F. inst: Luke warm water (from the nearest river), bottles weren't cleaned, and above all way to low dose of powder.

Thaiboxerken you are seing for yourself a western style maternity ward with lot's of doctors, nurses, midwifes, advisors etc. It doesn't work that way down there. Often there are only a few doctors and less nurses, midwifes are non existent and many places families has to provide food for the patients. The staff is underpaid and poorly educated. If a billion dollart firm like Nestle comes along with an extra income i'll bet you anything that those doctors will recommend anything.

You keep saying "People SHOULD make their own decisions" and "People SHOULD know better". Well people DON'T. A lot of people are poorly educated and rather naive and compagnies that prey on poorly educated people are vultures IMHO. You may call it clever sales tactics i call it immoral.