10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)

wrote in message ...
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.

OK, I know I wasn't the one you were talking to, but I had to tell you how
much I appreciated that! It's what I've been trying to vocalize but wasn't
sure how to to a very similiar question from my SIL. So thanks!

Melissa Walton
Mom to Connor born 05/24/05

wrote in message ...

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.

ITA.

--
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/

Sarah Vaughan wrote:

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.

Why does formula need to be advertised at all? Everyone knows that it
exists. If a woman truly, truly needs it, why can't she and her
doctor/pediatrician select the one that's right for the baby?

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.

I think there is still an assumption that a mother is going to formula
feed, at least some of the time. Exclusive breastfeeding is still, at
least around here, seen as "granola" and outside of the mainstream. I
get looks. In my town of 100,000, I have seen ONE other mother
breastfeeding her child in public (outside of LLL meetings). I have
seen dozens and dozens and dozens of mothers feeding their children
from bottles (I make no assumptions as to what was in those bottles -
it could've been EBM).

Until we live in a world where every mother feels free to feed her
child the most appropriate food (breastmilk) in the easiest, most
convenient way (straight from the breast), no matter where she is, I
think it's safe to say that there's still a bias toward formula in our
culture.

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.

Oh, I don't know. What's more motivating to you?

1) Breastmilk is convenient (desirable consequence).
2) Formula is often contaminated, and subject to frequent safety and
health recalls (undesirable consequence).

or

1) Breastmilk is the only source of antibodies and live cells that you
can feed your baby.
2) Formula is manufactured from by products of making other dairy
foods, in other words, waste.

or

1) Breastmilk is free.
2) Formula is $20 a can, or about $60 a week.

or

1) Breastmilk never spoils.
2) Ready to feed formula has to be thrown out in two days, resulting
in a lot of waste.

or

1) Breastmilk is conveniently packaged.
2) All of the packaging from the formula industry (cans, bottles,
etc.) ends up in the landfills.

Maybe I'm just a negative person, but the motivators for me are, "I
don't want to give my kid a bottle, and find out tomorrow that there's
glass in that batch of formula. I don't want my kid eating industrial
waste. I don't want to spend that much money. I don't want to waste
that much food. I don't want to have that sort of impact on the
environment." I'm just glad there's an alternative. But telling me,
"Oh, breastmilk is convenient!" doesn't motivate me unless you prove
that the other option is INconvenient.

But like I said, maybe I'm weird.

As for the mothers who want to breastfeed, but can't... Well, I'm
really not so worried about their feelings. Honestly. I was almost
one of them, and it was gut wrenching. If I had had to go to formula,
I would've made peace with that. I wouldn't have felt any worse than I
would as a Coke drinker watching a Pepsi commercial. I would suggest
that most women who knew in their hearts that they'd *really* tried
would feel the same way. Do you worry about the feelings (resisting
the urge to spell it "feewings") of mothers who hear "breastmilk is
best, but..." in formula commercials that air now?

Again, I think the solution is not to advertise it at all.

Amy

"Mum of Two" wrote
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.

ITA.


As one of those "special needs" mothers (gee thanks for calling me special
Larry ;-) ), I also agree.

I would prefer that my children were exclusively breastfed but they weren't.
However, that doesn't mean that I think that formula is anywhere near
equivalent to breastmilk.

Jean

--
LeinsterFreecycle Co-moderator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LeinsterFreecycle/

DD June '02
DS May '05

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.

I'll admit upfront I didn't take Psych 101, but I don't see the
original message on the website as conflicting with this. What nuances,
exactly, can you see in this text that are eluding me?

"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. "

Caledonia

"Caledonia" wrote in message
I'll admit upfront I didn't take Psych 101, but I don't see the
original message on the website as conflicting with this. What nuances,
exactly, can you see in this text that are eluding me?

"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. "

I did take Pschy 101 and went on to take more classes in Pschy and I still
cannot for the life of me see anything wrong with the below message.

--
Sue (mom to three girls)

wrote in message
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

I think that you are just so closed minded that you can't take anything for
face value. There is nothing wrong with the message when someone that isn't
so lactivist reads it. Doesn't take rocket science to figure out that you
are politically and economically motivated. Duh!
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

"Sue" wrote in message
news:ad2dnY0B07bwTMnZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

There is nothing wrong with the message when someone that isn't
so lactivist reads it.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the point Larry has been trying
to make.


--
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/

Brookben wrote:
why didn't they say 'at least for the first 2 years' if it weren't
simply to discourage breastfeeding. If a mommy stops at 6 months, she
would still need to use formula until 12, so their pockets would still
be filled with $$ ...

True -- but given that more than half of the mothers with children 1
are in the workforce in the US (okay, I'm limited by a US
perspective)-- 59% as of 2000, and I'm not sure if that number has
nudged since then -- for the majority of moms, the argument that
'breastfeeding is convenient' is, imo, bogus.

(And yes, I pumped for 3 years at work, across 2 babies -- but let's be
honest again, I was in a cushy professional job, with a comfy pumping
room, and a lot of flexibility regarding when I pumped. A fave
quotation of mine from the American College of Physicians, 2000 is:

"Studies of managed care populations and broader populations indicate
that employment, particularly an increased number of work hours per
week or a nonprofessional occupation status, is associated with a
reduced duration (planned or actual) of breast-feeding")

And if you're having pump resistance -- or forced to pump in the unisex
break room, or the toilet -- it's going to be trickier. The US
breastfeeding rate drops off dramatically after 8 weeks -- it can't be
simply because nursing has just gotten easier, and these moms are
looking for a challenge.

I think for me the thing that drives me over the edge is that it *is*
easier to breastfeed if you have support (access to a LC, or even
healthcare personnel), ability to pump at work (conducive work
environment, and the ability to make a big cash outlay for a pump -- or
the know-how to work the system to get a rental pump), and are pretty
aware of the benefits. But I don't view a knowledge of the benefits as
adequate to get around obstacles 1 and 2. And I think a lot of women
are still stuck on 1 and 2, and all the harping in the world about
benefits won't change it -- let alone mentioning convenience (*That*
for me, is personally annoying. There's nothing convenient about having
to pump every 2 hours when you're back at work -- unless I'm missing
something, but the process wasn't pleasurable, the pain I felt if I
couldn't pump wasn't fun, and the whole gestalt of 'not being available
when you've just come back from maternity leave and the partner is
concerned that you're not focussed on work' always made me feel
awkward.)

Hence, I really do see the need for formula -- and have no issues with
it being advertised. It's not a choice that I had to make, happily ---
and I'll clearly admit I'm *lucky* -- I had the money to walk away from
the job if the nursing hurdles were too onerous, I had no pump
resistance, and all told, my employer was relatively supportive -- but
I don't believe that my experience is typical for most moms (most of
whom are employed.)

Caledonia

"Mum of Two" wrote in message
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the point Larry has been
trying
to make.

I find Larry very hard to understand, so you may be right.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)