|
|
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/page...n_april06.html
I was just browsing the parent site of this link and saw '10 tips for nutrition' so I thought, great, I need some new food ideas for Will (11 months old yesterday). Bam - a nice little Nestle advertisement pops up. The first point is this: •Â*Breast milk is the perfect food for a baby, it contains all the nutrition your baby needs for the six months, with the added bonus of antibodies and other properties important to baby’s health and development. Health authorities recommend that you breastfeed your baby for at least six months if possible. How much misinformation could they get into one small paragraph about breastfeeding? I don't see antibodies as added bonuses of breastmilk, do you? I thought they were normal for a baby to be consuming for the first few years of life! ... and I'm sure Health Authorities recommend you breastfeed for longer than six months! /rant :) Jo -- Woman, Wife, Mother, Midwife |
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
"Notchalk" wrote in message
... http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/page...n_april06.html I was just browsing the parent site of this link and saw '10 tips for nutrition' so I thought, great, I need some new food ideas for Will (11 months old yesterday). Bam - a nice little Nestle advertisement pops up. The first point is this: . Breast milk is the perfect food for a baby, it contains all the nutrition your baby needs for the six months, with the added bonus of antibodies and other properties important to baby's health and development. Health authorities recommend that you breastfeed your baby for at least six months if possible. How much misinformation could they get into one small paragraph about breastfeeding? I don't see antibodies as added bonuses of breastmilk, do you? I thought they were normal for a baby to be consuming for the first few years of life! ... and I'm sure Health Authorities recommend you breastfeed for longer than six months! /rant :) LOL, not that I don't agree with you completely, but I am surprised that you expected any different from Nestle. This is just one of the reasons I don't buy Milo. ;-) -- Amy Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02, & Ana born screaming 30/06/04 http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/ http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/ My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/ |
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
"Notchalk" wrote in message
How much misinformation could they get into one small paragraph about breastfeeding? I don't see antibodies as added bonuses of breastmilk, do you? I thought they were normal for a baby to be consuming for the first few years of life! ... and I'm sure Health Authorities recommend you breastfeed for longer than six months! Sounds fine to me. And yes I do think anti-bodies are an added bonus for breastfeeding. A point that many women see as an incentive to breastfeed. So I am really not sure what your problem is, except that it is by Nestle, which again I don't have a problem with like many on this group. I read through the article and couldn't really find anything that I disagreed with. Me thinks you guys are just too picky. And the article says that breastmilk should be given for the first six months, which is true and then at that point you start solids. -- Sue (mom to three girls) |
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
On 2006-04-28 20:49:44 +0800, "Sue" said:
"Notchalk" wrote in message How much misinformation could they get into one small paragraph about breastfeeding? I don't see antibodies as added bonuses of breastmilk, do you? I thought they were normal for a baby to be consuming for the first few years of life! ... and I'm sure Health Authorities recommend you breastfeed for longer than six months! Sounds fine to me. And yes I do think anti-bodies are an added bonus for breastfeeding. A point that many women see as an incentive to breastfeed. So I am really not sure what your problem is, except that it is by Nestle, which again I don't have a problem with like many on this group. I read through the article and couldn't really find anything that I disagreed with. Me thinks you guys are just too picky. And the article says that breastmilk should be given for the first six months, which is true and then at that point you start solids. It's just that again, breastfeeding is talked about as a bonus rather than the norm. The angle should be that formula is lacking in the usual antibodies found in breastmilk. Picky perhaps, but I'd just like breast milk to be seen as normal for once :) Jo -- Woman, Wife, Mother, Midwife |
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
Sue writes:
: "Notchalk" wrote in message : How much misinformation could they get into one small paragraph about : breastfeeding? I don't see antibodies as added bonuses of breastmilk, : do you? I thought they were normal for a baby to be consuming for the : first few years of life! ... and I'm sure Health Authorities recommend : you breastfeed for longer than six months! : Sounds fine to me. And yes I do think anti-bodies are an added bonus for : breastfeeding. A point that many women see as an incentive to breastfeed. So : I am really not sure what your problem is, except that it is by Nestle, : which again I don't have a problem with like many on this group. I read : through the article and couldn't really find anything that I disagreed with. : Me thinks you guys are just too picky. And the article says that breastmilk : should be given for the first six months, which is true and then at that : point you start solids. : -- : Sue (mom to three girls) This is clearly a politically (and economically) motivated message. You clearly skipped Psych 101 if you cannot see the way the wording of the message works to subltly undermine and discourage extended or dedicated breastfeeding. It is worded in such a way to suggest that breastfeeding is something "extra" that a mother may *want* for her baby, as opposed to soemthing the baby *needs and deserves*, and it goes on to imply by inference that artificial milk (formula) is something "normal" rather than the inferior product that it is which has fewer health benefits. This is not a accidental phrasing by the formula industry. It is a clear and deliberate attempt to limit the duration of breastfeeding for the economic benefit of the formula industry. Duh! Larry |
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
Notchalk wrote:
http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/page...n_april06.html I was just browsing the parent site of this link and saw '10 tips for nutrition' so I thought, great, I need some new food ideas for Will (11 months old yesterday). Bam - a nice little Nestle advertisement pops up. The first point is this: • Breast milk is the perfect food for a baby, it contains all the nutrition your baby needs for the six months, with the added bonus of antibodies and other properties important to baby’s health and development. Health authorities recommend that you breastfeed your baby for at least six months if possible. How much misinformation could they get into one small paragraph about breastfeeding? An astonishing amount, as anyone who's read 'Secrets Of The Baby Whisperer' will know. However, there was none that I could see in this paragraph. I don't see antibodies as added bonuses of breastmilk, do you? I thought they were normal for a baby to be consuming for the first few years of life! While I understand the arguments for presenting breastmilk as normal rather than as an extra bonus, that's still a matter of perspective, not of misinformation. ... and I'm sure Health Authorities recommend you breastfeed for longer than six months! Yes, that would be why they said "at least". All the best, Sarah -- http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com But how do we _know_ that no-one ever said on their deathbed that they wished they’d spent more time at the office? |
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
Sarah Vaughan writes:
: And when formula is presented as something inferior given to the baby : instead of what the baby needs and deserves, what sort of message does : that give to a woman who really wanted to breastfeed but was unable to : do so? This is an advertising message. It is aimed at the general populace, the great majority of whom CAN breastfeed, not at the special needs mother who would like to, but can't. I think we forget that is what started the thread in the first place. Given that, I think the first message (that formula feeding is less desirable than breastfeeding) should be aimed at the populace as a whole, who can breastfeed, and that the message the formula is the best available alternative (some may argue, but let's say approximately :-) should be aimed at the special needs mothers who cannot breastfeed. Speaking in the social (not personal) context, we should not comprimise the message for the the masses in order to meet the needs of those who are in special circumstances. Rather we should create a special, separate message for them because of their situation. I hope you agree, Larry |
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
Sarah Vaughan writes:
: While I understand the arguments for presenting breastmilk as normal : rather than as an extra bonus, that's still a matter of perspective, not : of misinformation. Information IS perspective! When an organization cannot maniuplate the "facts" they deliberately alter the perspective to change the impact of the way the message is delivered, and its resulting impact on the hearer! This is again Psych 101. Larry |
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
wrote:
Sarah Vaughan writes: : And when formula is presented as something inferior given to the baby : instead of what the baby needs and deserves, what sort of message does : that give to a woman who really wanted to breastfeed but was unable to : do so? This is an advertising message. It is aimed at the general populace, the great majority of whom CAN breastfeed, not at the special needs mother who would like to, but can't. I think we forget that is what started the thread in the first place. Given that, I think the first message (that formula feeding is less desirable than breastfeeding) should be aimed at the populace as a whole, who can breastfeed, and that the message the formula is the best available alternative (some may argue, but let's say approximately :-) should be aimed at the special needs mothers who cannot breastfeed. Speaking in the social (not personal) context, we should not comprimise the message for the the masses in order to meet the needs of those who are in special circumstances. Rather we should create a special, separate message for them because of their situation. How? They're not going to divide themselves neatly into separate groups. Women who couldn't breastfeed (either due to biological reasons or to poor advice) are going to be reading about children's nutrition as well, and are going to come across posts like that. Also, although I understand the theory behind shifting the perspective from 'breastmilk is best but formula is good enough' to 'breastmilk is normal and formula is inferior', I'd like to know whether there's any evidence that the latter approach actually works any better. As far as Psych 101 goes, it's also Psych 101 that people are more motivated by aiming for desirable consequences than by avoiding undesirable consequences. All the best, Sarah -- http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com But how do we _know_ that no-one ever said on their deathbed that they wished they’d spent more time at the office? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com