My meaning was quite clear. No babies were ever suffering because they were formula fed vs. breast fed, though we all have always known that breast feeding is best, it may not be practical for all people or situations and modern formula feeding is an acceptable alternative for most rational people.

I do know what the fuck I’m talking about, and you did not “misspeak”, you were flat out WRONG.

Back-pedaling is tiring, isn’t it?

Nice try on the whole “Don’t you feel sorry for all the little children of color?” gambit though. Showed a real touch of class on your part.
“Moral Victories” are nice, but legal victories are binding and make for legal precedent. Your side lost and made it harder for others to win in the future.
That’s what you get for going off half-cocked.

Trying to forge a link between bottle-born infections and formula was about the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen. If bottle-feeding is so dangerous, why in the world would you want to express milk, put it in a bottle and insert said bottle into you precious infant’s mouth?

Way to undercut your own argument there, Sparky.

Don’t be such a pessimist. I’ll not ignore what you have to say…I’ll just point out where you’re wrong.

No one said formula was better, what they said was that it was a viable alternative…which it was and still is.

2) Babies with digestive system infections tend to have a hard time getting nutrients into their systems be it from breast milk or formula and that can also lead to life threatening malnutrition.

3) Infections from feeding bottles happen because the bottles are not properly sterilised. It can happen whether breast milk or formula is in the bottle. Your point then would be that expressing breast milk for later feeding of baby is dangerous, so lets close the nursing mother rooms and save some babies, yes?

Is it possible there are any other contributing factors to the high third world infant mortality rate or it solely attributable to formula?

You do a fine job of citing effect, but a poor job of proving cause even tho you obviously feel strongly about this issue.

Well, thank God you came along, otherwise someone may have taken my words as fact!

Sure, some might have thought it was just a joke, but we both know the vast majority thought it was a grammar lesson, right?

It isn’t.

“The Hanks family lives here.”
“There are 32 Hankses in just this one house.”
“This is the Hankses’ house.”

Which is why you were selected for the Word of the Day. In fact, she rather set you up to put the words into your mouth, but thank God you finally recognized them (they went right over the head of so many of the other posters).

I’m sitting here noticing (after all, how could I not?) 1) your clever bon mot, 2) after yesterday’s word of the day, “They’re trying to starve our babies! OUR BABIES!” (which receieved a whopping total of 12 thumbs (yawn) on a thread that was hopping, I tell you, hopping), 3) and then today’s delightful little PAN about “funny because it’s not true” drunken Moms, and last but certainly not least, 4) the prompt closing of the original thread so I could not officially reply there.

Methinks I must have pushed somebody’s button. Can’t wait to see what the goddess has planned for Mother’s Day. And how ironic that the queen of PAN is choosing to passive-aggressively continue the conversation in terms that she alone can control. It really doesn’t get much better than that. Oops – it actually does – apparently I’ve been banned? How incredibly PA delicious of you!!!!

Shoutout to CB – hey, Einstein who already knows everything, try googling “Nestle’s boycott” and “nestle history marketing” and see what comes back.

Nestlé’s perceived marketing strategy was first written about in New Internationalist magazine in 1973 and in a booklet called The Baby Killer, published by the British NGO War On Want in 1974. Nestlé attempted to sue the publisher of a German-language translation (Third World Action Group) for libel. After a two-year trial, the court found in favour of Nestlé because they could not be held responsible for the infant deaths ‘in terms of criminal law’. Because the defendants were only fined 300 Swiss Francs (just over US$400 adjusted for inflation), and Judge Jürg Sollberger commented that Nestlé “must modify its publicity methods fundamentally”, TIME magazine declared this a “moral victory” for the defendants.

Notice that was back in 1973. Hmmm, isn’t that around the time some of our own mother ‘s were mothering (just like I said in my post)? In case you miss my point, and I expect you will, who do you think that formula makers aimed their marketing at before they went to the third world? Oh, that’s right, moms living in the first world. And what did those formula makers do in the third world? The baby food industry stands accused of promoting their products in communities which cannot use them properly; of using advertising, sales girls dressed up in nurses uniforms, give away samples and free gift gimmicks that persuade mothers to give up breast feeding … Two out of four of those techniques are still used in the first world today; and once a mom dries up, she no longer has a choice.

From The Baby Killer:
The move from traditional rural cultures to an urban way of life strongly influenced by the West is a major factor in the trend from breast feeding, As the social position of women changes and they go out to earn a wage, there are obvious pressures against breast feeding. Adoption of Western attitudes, like looking at the breast as a cosmetic sex symbol rather than a source of nourishment, reinforce the trend …

Third World babies are dying because their mothers bottle feed them with western style infant milk. Many that do not die are drawn into a vicidus cycle of malnutrition and disease that will leave them physically and intellectually stunted for life … Even in Britain- where standards of living are high and most families live in hygienic conditions, babies still suffer from infections passed on to them by feeding bottles – as hospital statistics show …

So, CB, before you make a claim that “no infants were ever suffering in the first place”, perhaps you should know what the f*** you are actually talking about. And I don’t really care how many ignorant smart-asses think that their important personal phone calls on company time are more important than the rights of nursing mothers trying to, sing it with me, literally feed their babies.

I did mispeak, though, perhaps doctors didn’t say that formula was “better” nutritionally back then, I believe what they said that it was “just as good”. It was formula makers, like Nestlé, who were convincing western Moms that formula was overall a better solution than breastfeeding, back in a day when people were generally more trusting (weren’t we just talking about that the other day … I wonder where?)

And babies have literally gotten ill and/or died because of that misinformation. But I got a few small details wrong – which of course you now have liberty to *completely ignore everything* I have said.

Sincerely,
Somebody Else who used to be Who? Me?
xoxo

But there’s no excuse for missing the trashcan.