maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:10 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: UN breastfeeding confusion
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:06 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15416
Reputation points: 1459
Somehow I am not surprised at all. :roll:

MAX GREENWOOD wrote:
Image

US turned to threats to fight breastfeeding resolution: report

The United States turned to threats at the World Health Assembly in an effort to quash a resolution that sought to promote breastfeeding, The New York Times reported Sunday.

The resolution was originally expected to be introduced by Ecuador. But the U.S. warned that if the country went through with introducing the measure, it would cut military aid and implement punitive trade measures, the Times reported.

The resolution holds that breastfeeding is the healthiest option for young children, and pushes countries to limit the spread of inaccurate information about breast milk substitutes.

The U.S. pushed to couch the language in the resolution, including one part that pledged to "protect, promote and support breast-feeding."

In a statement to the Times, the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency that led the push to water down the resolution, argued that the original text would have "placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children."

"We recognize not all women are able to breast-feed for a variety of reasons," a spokesman for the agency told the Times. "These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so."

The State Department declined to comment to the Times.

After Ecuador dropped the resolution, health advocates sought to find other sponsors, many of them countries in Latin America and Africa that rely on U.S. assistance, the Times reported. Eventually, Russia introduced the resolution.

The baby formula industry, which is dominated by U.S. and European companies, has seen growth in developing countries in recent years, as breastfeeding has become more common in wealthier countries.

According to the Times's report, lobbyists from the baby food industry were present at the World Health Assembly meetings on the resolution, but there is no reported evidence that they pressed U.S. representatives to try to water down the measure.
...


The end justifies the means :roll:

Baby/infant formula is in Finnish Äidinmaidonkorvike, mother's milk substitute. Not an alternative, but a substitute.

But perhaps the jury is not out yet to determine the ultimate purpose of female breasts; at least not in every country. :roll:

PS. Kudos to Russia, for once.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: UN breastfeeding confusion
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:17 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15416
Reputation points: 1459
This even better article describing the incidence: "tantamount to blackmail".

RENAE REINTS wrote:
Image

U.S. Delegates Opposed an International Resolution That Supported Breastfeeding

The United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly in Geneva this spring became the scene of a surprising showdown, as the U.S. battled with other nations over a resolution supporting the use of breast milk, the New York Times reported Sunday.

The resolution said countries should limit the misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes, as a mother’s breast milk has been shown to be the healthiest for children in decades of research. The resolution was expected to pass easily, but U.S. delegates aimed to remove language that encouraged countries to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” in an alleged alignment with baby formula manufacturers.

When this failed, the Times reported that U.S. delegates turned to threats. They reportedly told Ecuador, who planned to introduce the resolution, that if it didn’t drop the proposal, the U.S. would punish the nation with trade measures. The Ecuadorian delegates acquiesced, and health advocates struggled to find another sponsor for the resolution.

The Times says this scenario was verified by several other delegates present, many of whom requested anonymity for fear of retaliation from the U.S.

“What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the U.S. holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on best way to protect infant and young child health,” Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action, told the Times.

In addition to the trade threats, an Ecuadorean government official told the Times the U.S. threatened to withdrawal military support from northern Ecuador, where violence from boarding Colombia causes ongoing issues.

“We were shocked because we didn’t understand how such a small matter like breast-feeding could provoke such a dramatic response,” said the Ecuadorean official, speaking with a requirement of anonymity.

The Russian delegation eventually stepped in to introduce the measure, with no push-back from the U.S.

“We’re not trying to be a hero here, but we feel that it is wrong when a big country tries to push around some very small countries, especially on an issue that is really important for the rest of the world,” a Russian delegate told the Times, saying the decision to support the resolution was a matter of principle.

The final resolution retained much of the original wording, despite American efforts. Just one portion, calling on the World Health Organization to provide support to member states seeking to halt “inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children,” was removed.

A 2016 study published by The Lancet says breastfeeding could save the lives of 823,000 children and 20,000 mothers each year. In addition, universal breastfeeding could save $300 billion in reduced health care costs and improved economic prospects for children.

The Times reported that the baby food market is a $70 billion industry.


:roll:

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: UN breastfeeding confusion
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:01 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11479
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 14970
No mention whatsoever of whom these "Americans" are or whether they are following any policy directive from higher up the food chain.

Yet, the quoted NY Times article, makes it clear that some of the key U.S. Federal administrations are not involved in whatever took place

Quote:
American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.

The showdown over the issue was recounted by more than a dozen participants from several countries, many of whom requested anonymity because they feared retaliation from the United States.
. . .
The State Department declined to respond to questions, saying it could not discuss private diplomatic conversations. The Department of Health and Human Services, the lead agency in the effort to modify the resolution, explained the decision to contest the resolution’s wording but said H.H.S. was not involved in threatening Ecuador.

“The resolution as originally drafted placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children,” an H.H.S. spokesman said in an email. “We recognize not all women are able to breast-feed for a variety of reasons. These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so.” The spokesman asked to remain anonymous in order to speak more freely.

Although lobbyists from the baby food industry attended the meetings in Geneva, health advocates said they saw no direct evidence that they played a role in Washington’s strong-arm tactics. The $70 billion industry, which is dominated by a handful of American and European companies, has seen sales flatten in wealthy countries in recent years, as more women embrace breast-feeding. Over all, global sales are expected to rise by 4 percent in 2018, according to Euromonitor, with most of that growth occurring in developing nations.


Not to mention that, whatever took place seems to have resulted in the "no effect" for the putative "American ostruction and threats."

Quote:
In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.


Smells like a big steaming pile of bullshit with loose connections to factual reality to me.

Why don't you get back to us when you have at least a 3% clue what the fuck you are talking about, instead of just parroting whatever news links get forwarded to you by your conspiracy nutjobber connections?

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: UN breastfeeding confusion
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:23 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15416
Reputation points: 1459
Anthropoid wrote:
No mention whatsoever of whom these "Americans" are or whether they are following any policy directive from higher up the food chain.
...


So you have problems with reading comprehension? :roll:

The US delegation in the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly in Geneva. Those Americans.

For some odd reason you believe this is fake news. But then all news you don't want to know are fake news. :lol:

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: UN breastfeeding confusion
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:54 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 15786
Reputation points: 12603
The Hill is a lefty organization.

It behooves anybody to take a close look at it's output, the same as with any organization.

Besides where were these critics when Obama was in office ... oh, I know, the Obama administration was pure.

_________________
"Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us."
John Dickinson
Constitutional Convention of 1787


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: UN breastfeeding confusion
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:01 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11479
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 14970
nero wrote:
Anthropoid wrote:
No mention whatsoever of whom these "Americans" are or whether they are following any policy directive from higher up the food chain.
...


So you have problems with reading comprehension? :roll:

The US delegation in the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly in Geneva. Those Americans.

For some odd reason you believe this is fake news. But then all news you don't want to know are fake news. :lol:


I am skeptical of nearly everything, including the existence of reality. But I'm especially skeptical of stuff where the prose is full of weasel words, the things unsaid scream either (a) poor research or (b) willful obfuscation, and (c) there is a pretty obvious agenda.

The fact that these were "private diplomatic conversations" and that the "sources" are unwilling to be quoted speaks volumes. As far as I'm concerned nothing happened unless someone is willing to go on record and be quoted; that is how a court of law works and that is how journalism should work too. The imperative to "reveal the truth" by protecting anonymous sources is too readily warped into "perverting the truth" for the sake of a particular agenda.

Just the facts Ma'am.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: UN breastfeeding confusion
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:15 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 27006
Reputation points: 20000
I can't stand the WHO.

Those 'tards gave us !CD-10


V91.07XA – Burn due to water-skis on fire, initial encounter

S30867A - Insect bite (nonvenomous) of anus, initial encounter

Whew! That's a relief. At least it wasn't poisonous.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: UN breastfeeding confusion
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:15 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15416
Reputation points: 1459
jack t ripper wrote:
I can't stand the WHO.

Those 'tards gave us !CD-10


V91.07XA – Burn due to water-skis on fire, initial encounter

S30867A - Insect bite (nonvenomous) of anus, initial encounter

Whew! That's a relief. At least it wasn't poisonous.

What is wrong with breastfeeding and encouraging countries to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding”?

In your professional hat on. ;)

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: UN breastfeeding confusion
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:17 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15416
Reputation points: 1459
abradley wrote:
The Hill is a lefty organization.

It behooves anybody to take a close look at it's output, the same as with any organization.

Besides where were these critics when Obama was in office ... oh, I know, the Obama administration was pure.

How about Fortune, a left wing organization? :roll:

Old Crusader, a true conservative with shoot the messenger policy. :lol:

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: UN breastfeeding confusion
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:28 am 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 15786
Reputation points: 12603
nero wrote:
abradley wrote:
The Hill is a lefty organization.

It behooves anybody to take a close look at it's output, the same as with any organization.

Besides where were these critics when Obama was in office ... oh, I know, the Obama administration was pure.

How about Fortune, a left wing organization? :roll:

Old Crusader, a true conservative with shoot the messenger policy. :lol:
Don't know about Fortune. Do know about 'The Hill'.

_________________
"Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us."
John Dickinson
Constitutional Convention of 1787


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group