10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)

"Brookben" wrote in message
oups.com...
Why do people get hung up on 'exclusive' breastfeeding? Of course no
one is insinuating anyone would be exclusively breastfeeding at 2 years
old... *major eye roll*. Just like no one would insinuate that a baby
should be exclusively formula fed at 12 months. But, it IS a
misleading statement to say that breastfeeding is the perfect food for
the first 6 months, when EVERYONE knows is the perfect food for the
first 2 years, at least. That does not, in any way, suggest that there
aren't any other foods to be introduced, for crying out loud.

But, just like the original statement of breastfeed for 6 months, as it's
the perfect food for the first 6 months, saying breast milk is the perfect
food for the first 2 years can be just as misleading. The 'perfect food'
for a 2 year old is NOT breast milk. Perfect food for a 2 year old is
whatever everyone else at the table is eating, basically, as by 2 years a
child should have long ago been eating solids. By 2 years old, breast milk
should not be food, food is food. At 2 months old breast milk IS the
perfect food - and it is, generally speaking, until around 6 months when
food should be introduced, and at that point, I do not see breast milk as
being the perfect food - it's perfect *with* food - and yes, for the first 2
years.
I find the statement about breast milk being the perfect food for the first
2 years just as misleading as a lot have said the Nestle statement is.

It's not like the cow-milk companies were paying per word - they said
enough to mislead, but not enough to outright defraud, when they could
have - just as easily - linked to the WHO.

"Brookben" wrote in message
oups.com...
For someone who is insisting we are too picky over the Nestle comments,
you sure are picky...

Yep, I am. I am learning something from this group. )

That is if you are talking to me. It's proper etiquette to quote who you are
responding to.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

Brookben wrote:
Why do people get hung up on 'exclusive' breastfeeding? Of course no
one is insinuating anyone would be exclusively breastfeeding at 2 years
old... *major eye roll*. Just like no one would insinuate that a baby
should be exclusively formula fed at 12 months. But, it IS a
misleading statement to say that breastfeeding is the perfect food for
the first 6 months, when EVERYONE knows is the perfect food for the
first 2 years, at least. That does not, in any way, suggest that there
aren't any other foods to be introduced, for crying out loud.

Umm - who are you responding to? Which statement? If you are
responding to me, I was trying to differentiate between "perfect for
the first 6 months" vs the ideal situation, which is exclusive bf for
the first 6 months, then bf while supplementing with solid foods. I
don't think anyone is trying to imply that people should exclusively bf
for 2 years.

And as for whether or not breastmilk is perfect for 2 years - that's a
semantic interpretation. Breastmilk does not become lower quality over
time, so in that sense it remains perfect. Otoh, it shouldn't be the
only source of nutrition at 2 years, either.

Please, learn to quote so we can understand your arguments clearer. If
you are using google, you can use the "options" link instead of the
regular reply link in order to get the quoted material. If you are
using another newsreader, let us know, and someone should be able to
help you.

Irene

On Mon, 1 May 2006 14:31:40 +1200, "Mum of Two" wrote:

"Health authorities recommend that you breastfeed your baby
for at least six months if possible."

Respectable health authorities have recommended babies be breastfed for at
least a year for some time now, and more recently the WHO has recommended
they be BF for at least two years.
It's a common trick to include *some* accurate information in a passage
which has the deliberate intent to mislead, because it lends more
credibility to it.

Ok, they should have say one year or add "exclusively", but
considering the first sentence, I didn't feel that they suggested that
you should stop at 6 months.
It's IMO very good for a maker of formula. I mean I'm not expecting
Hersheys to tell me to eat veggies because chocolate is bad, why
should I expect it from a formula maker.

Anne

Sarah Vaughan writes:

: 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.

Women who cannot breastfeed are the exception (much smaller and specialized
audience), women who can breastfeed but need to get the message in no
uncertian terms are the much larger general audience. It is morally
indefensible to dilute the message for the larger group in order to
placate the sensitivities of the smaller group. What should be done
instead is to tailor the primary message to the larger group, then to
create a separate focused message to the smaller group telling them
them that if they cannot do otherwise it is OK to feed formula. Turning
the message around has demonstratable negative health consequences.

: 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.

There is a whole raft of socialogical studies showing how the presentation
of the message affects the perception of the recepient of the message.
When applied to breastmilk versus formula, the inescapable conclusion is
that presenting breastmilk as "superior" softens the impact because formula
can be seen as "normal" or good enoug. When formula is presented as
inferior, the inescapable fact of the superiority of breastmilk become
much clearsr. and unfortunately, your last statement is not borne out
by people's behavior.

: All the best,

: Sarah

Larry

: --
: 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?

To mix my metahors, QED! Game, set, and match!

Larry

Iuil writes:
: "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

Caledonia writes:

: 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

You want a line by line analysis?

"Breast milk is the perfect food for a baby"

Breast milk is so perfect that there are other thangs that are
probably all right. In fact, you since it is so perfect, if you
want to start supplementing, that is probably OK too.

"it contains all the nutrition your baby needs for six months"

The formula industry defends this statement by saying that they
mean you can start solids after six months, but it can easily
be interpreted as to mean you can switch to formula after six
months.

"with the added bonus of antibodies and other properties important
to a baby's health and development."

Why is this an added bonus. Why is it considered an essential?
They are only "important," a word which can be deprecated. They
are not essential or required. This is an intentional dumbing down.

"Health authorities recommend that you breastfeed your baby
for at least six months."

This is the biggest lie in the statement! Almost all respected
health authorities (WHO, for example) recommend breastfeeding 2 years.
Why do they say 6 months? Even organization who are under intense
pressure from the formula lobby (APA, for example) recommend one
hear.

The inuendo is clear. The objective is to move a baby off of mother's
milk and onto formula as early as possible without appearing to
be opposed to breastfeeding. They are trying to get all babies off
of mother's milk by six months, so they can feed formula for as long
as possible.

Larry

Brookben writes:
: www.bobrow.net/kimberly/birth/BFLanguage.html

This is essentially correct, but people like Sarah, Caldonia, and Sue
either just don't get it or just don't believe it. They are unwilling
to accept that the subtlty of wording can significantly change the
acceptance or rejection of a message, or even the basic interpretation of
what the message means. I am starting to believe that convincing them
otherwise is a futile exercise, although I still hold out the
(unlikely) hope that if possible to do, it would have a positive
social benefit. In doing so, I (and you, and anyone who has the
temerity to continue to hold this position in the face of their
contradiction) am (are) labelled an unreasonable extremist!

C'est la guerre,
Larry

On 4 May 2006 15:47:54 -0600, wrote:

"with the added bonus of antibodies and other properties important
to a baby's health and development."

Why is this an added bonus. Why is it considered an essential?
They are only "important," a word which can be deprecated. They
are not essential or required. This is an intentional dumbing down.

Because millions of babies trive on formula, it's not essential nor
required, it's only important.

Anne

Amy wrote:
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?

Jo and Larry were not objecting to formula advertisements per se, but to
the fact that a commentary on child nutrition aimed at mothers in
general didn't refer to formula as 'inferior'. I was objecting to that
point.

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.

To clarify - I'm not objecting to the idea of trying to get
breastfeeding more into the mainstream as the accepted norm (something
I'm all in favour of). I'm objecting to the idea of describing formula
as *inferior* and breastmilk as something babies *need*, because that
can be very painful for women who were unable, for whatever reason, to
breastfeed.

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.

At the time that I was expecting my baby and planning to breastfeed, all
of the number 1s on the list. I would give my reasons for breastfeeding
as 'better for the baby and more convenient for me', in that order of
importance. I do mentally phrase it in terms of thinking of wanting to
get the benefits of breastmilk rather than of wanting to avoid the harms
of formula.

More to the point, psychological studies on what motivates people show
that this is the most common way for people to think about things -
people are, for the most part, more motivated by the carrot than by the
stick. I know this because it was actually discussed in a lecture in a
psychology course I took, with specific reference to the implications
for public health messages - i.e., that they should be phrased in terms
of benefits gained rather than harms avoided, because that is what
generally motivates people the most. So, when Larry says that his POV
is basic Psych 101, he just isn't correct. Whether Larry likes it or
not, Psych 101 teaches the opposite.

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.

Not weird, but you are unusual. And it makes sense to tailor a public
health message along the lines that will make an impression on the
greatest number of people.

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.

And I don't agree with you. I think that most women who really wanted
to be able to breastfeed are going to feel a real wrench on hearing the
stuff they give their child described as 'inferior', and being told that
their baby is not getting what he 'needs'. I think that most women do
feel that not being able to give their babies something that's good for
them is of higher emotional impact than making a choice for one soft
drink over another. If you genuinely would not have felt that way,
then, yes, you are unusual.

Do you worry about the feelings (resisting
the urge to spell it "feewings")

But you didn't resist the urge to mention it, I notice.

of mothers who hear "breastmilk is
best, but..." in formula commercials that air now?

Yes. But there's not much to be done about that - since breastmilk _is_
best, that information needs to be put out there. I do think, however,
that it's possible to do so in a way that's tactful - especially since I
see not one shred of evidence that Larry's way is actually likely to
work any better, and thus I don't see a dilemma on that point at all.

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

Reasonable enough, but wouldn't avoid the issue we're discussing here.
This thread is a response not specifically to an overt advertisement,
but to a particular way of describing breastmilk vs. formula.


All the best,

Sarah

--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell