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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
"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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
"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) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
"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/ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
"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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 06:02 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 09:50 PM |
nestle question - premier ambient products | j rickman | Breastfeeding | 2 | January 15th 04 07:54 PM |