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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
"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) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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 |
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 |