A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Breastfeeding
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 28th 06, 09:07 AM posted to misc.kids.breastfeeding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #2  
Old April 28th 06, 11:15 AM posted to misc.kids.breastfeeding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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/


  #3  
Old April 28th 06, 01:49 PM posted to misc.kids.breastfeeding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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)


  #4  
Old April 28th 06, 02:15 PM posted to misc.kids.breastfeeding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #5  
Old April 28th 06, 06:49 PM posted to misc.kids.breastfeeding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #6  
Old April 28th 06, 11:56 PM posted to misc.kids.breastfeeding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?
  #7  
Old April 28th 06, 11:58 PM posted to misc.kids.breastfeeding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)

wrote:
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


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?


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?
  #8  
Old April 29th 06, 12:32 AM posted to misc.kids.breastfeeding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #9  
Old April 29th 06, 12:35 AM posted to misc.kids.breastfeeding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 29th 06, 01:17 AM posted to misc.kids.breastfeeding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
50% people have dirty yellow teeth! Find Tips To Whiten Your Teeth [email protected] General 0 March 25th 06 07:02 AM
Beyond the Office [Internet Tips: Keep the Web Safe for All Ages - 09/06/2005] Ablang General 0 September 8th 05 06:59 AM
Tips and Tricks for Introducing Solids to Your Baby Gary Hendricks General 34 October 13th 04 10:09 PM
nestle questions elizabeth emerald Breastfeeding 2 March 19th 04 10:50 PM
nestle question - premier ambient products j rickman Breastfeeding 2 January 15th 04 08:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.