|
osumaralbujar (May 28, 2008 at 2:32 am)
lol you´re right... about your question: the restrictions in comercialization and advertising that it promotes (with succeed)... I saw more problems about these policies than the ones that I already mention, but the discussion will be to long for a "youtube conversation"... I did an academic article about it (taken information of peru, where 50% of the population is poor), but is in Spanish.
debn31 (May 28, 2008 at 1:27 am)
AHhh, well at least we have the same main goal! That is a good start, don't you think?What it is specifically that you don't like about WHO's policies (just curious).
osumaralbujar (May 27, 2008 at 8:58 pm)
A better policy for both, rich and poor, is -in any case- counter advertising about the beneficts of bf. But my indignation is because of the policies of the WHO. They are extremly wrong in my view, despite the fact that I am in concordance with you in the main goal that we have to reach.
osumaralbujar (May 27, 2008 at 8:53 pm)
Ok, I agree in that. But my point was other, excuse me if I say it wrong: Rich people will bootle feeding his babies despite the bans. Why? because they are not affected with the rise in prices product of the bans (not at the level of poor people at least) and they have information ABOUT FORMULAS for alternatives sources. So, WHO regulation is intented to discourage poor people for bf, not rich one. And, I argue that this regulation has a paradoxical effect in poor people.
debn31 (May 27, 2008 at 8:51 pm)
I will however, agree that it is the poorest who suffer the most. At least most in NA who choose to bottlefeed have access to clean water and health care. That is another reason it saddens me to see some of these mothers in the Philippines choose to bottlefeed (and no, I'm NOT commenting on the mommies that HAVE to, let's clear that up). And, I think that they have less power in general, and don't think that companies don't take advantage of that.
debn31 (May 27, 2008 at 8:35 pm)
And actually - I will disagree with you...on the fact that those well off have sufficient info. Actually, even in North AMerica, there is much misunderstanding and misconceptions regarding breastfeeding. And that's not even getting into the very odd socially held views by some that breastfeeding is "wrong" or "gross". It's sexualized here in North America, sadly.
osumaralbujar (May 27, 2008 at 8:29 pm)
rich people is not our problem, they have sufficient information, despite advertisment. is not important for they if you ban or not.. the problem is the poorest people. If you agree in that SOME people don´t have the chance to bf, so why make the alternatives unaviable? (taking at account that I previously say that, if they have the chance, they will bf because it´s FREEEEEE (poor people usually value that).
debn31 (May 27, 2008 at 8:28 pm)
Also,this is not an attack on bottle feeding mothers. I might not agree with the choice, and it makes me sad for the baby,but it's the mom's to make, and I will always defend that.But, it's not the mom I have the problem with. It's the companies who blatantly disregard the law (whether it's banned or not, they find MANY ways to get around that) - and push formula on families that not only don't need it but can't afford it. All for profit. Makes me sick!
debn31 (May 27, 2008 at 8:23 pm)
I agree, of course they are! The rich are usually more educated, better fed etc.And, you totally hit the nail on the head. The free alternative IS the even the best alternative. ANd that's what makes me sooo sad! These women could be putting the money they put into formula, into buying food for themselves, and then nursing the babe.
osumaralbujar (May 27, 2008 at 8:20 pm)
I agree with you on that. But maybe you´re missing out that almost always the less educated people is also the poorest: so they naturally will choose the "free alternative" (i.e. breastfeeding). And, thus, if they do the opposite, maybe they have (in my experience do have) a powerfull reason to do so. | 
