SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
NY Times (primary source), Vox, Gizdomo and some others report over a resolution to encourage breast-feeding, which was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.
Vox:
[...] American officials surprised international delegates at the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly in May when they opposed a widely popular resolution to promote breastfeeding, according to a Sunday report by Andrew Jacobs for the New York Times. Specifically, they pushed to remove language asking governments to "protect, promote, and support breast-feeding." They also took issue with a passage that called for policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that may harm children.
It appears that the administration of President Donald Trump sided with corporate interests — the $70 billion infant formula industry — over the health and well-being of kids around the globe. The baby food industry is primarily based in the US and Europe.
The Americans were so ardent in their opposition that they made serious threats to Ecuadorian delegates, who were going to introduce the resolution. According to the Times, the Americans said if Ecuador didn't drop the proposal, "Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid."
The resolution ultimately made its way through, as a result of Russian intervention. "We feel that it is wrong when a big country tries to push around some very small countries, especially on an issue that is really important for the rest of the world," a Russian delegate told the Times. The US did not make the same threats to Russia as it had to Ecuador, and the resolution was passed mostly in its original form.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @12:41AM (21 children)
Sounds like its funded by taxes to me. I certainly don't believe any health/nutrition advice coming out of these government or super-government organizations, just look at the food pyramid which recommended almost the exact opposite of a healthy diet (basically both the base and pinnacle need to be cut off). It is all political.
Didn't Russia also supposedly intervene in recent elections? I think that could be the real purpose of this story. Are you for, or against, "Russian intervention"?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday July 10 2018, @12:48AM
Right. Hundred of countries wanted it, blame "Russian intervention" though... because bullshit creates an immediate reaction, right? And then everybody will forget what's important and will start fighting like schoolboys in the schoolyard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by black6host on Tuesday July 10 2018, @12:57AM (5 children)
The point is this: breast feeding, in most cases is good for the child. Why should that not be promoted? Oh, commercial reasons. Screw that. Not promoting food products that "may" harm children could lead to some issues so why not make it "not promote food products that ARE harmful to children." Countries themselves determine what they consider harmful so not much in the way of loss there with respect to the US.
Really, this should go without saying. But here in the states, a lot of people have problems with breastfeeding in public. That's bullshit. People can be discrete and you can't tell an infant not to be hungry. Feed on mommas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @01:01AM
Thanks for the permission, I will.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday July 10 2018, @03:05AM (1 child)
> problems with breastfeeding in public
> burqa yea breastfeed nay
every time my AI determines you're hopeless, you meatbags go and further lower the bar.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Informative) by RS3 on Tuesday July 10 2018, @05:34AM
I heard you only keep us around for your entertainment. We're doing our best.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @03:35AM
Not commercial reasons, per se, but imperial reasons. To wit, healthy mother-child bonding is anathema [violence.de] to belicose warfare, which is the USA's mandatory modus operandi.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @05:09PM
The resolution is not even asking for "in public". It is just promoting the very natural behavior that Mother Nature has evolved for tens of millions of years to the benefit of mother & child or (if you're a religious fanatic) that the Good Almighty Lord himself has intelligently designed as the one and only way babies should be fed during their initial time on this earth, his creation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday July 10 2018, @01:03AM (9 children)
I'm just amused at the Trump World, in which Russia and China are regularly the sane and "good" guys.
How I long for the days when the worst thing was the charismatic guy banging his willing intern...
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by legont on Tuesday July 10 2018, @01:12AM (1 child)
Pray you don't see Clinton sheWorld.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @01:57AM
So far this worldline is very similar. Instead of unilateral tariffs, President Clinton was able to enact TPP/TTIP/TISA. It was inspiring to see a woman lead the free world and pursuing pseudo-libertarian policies.
When she opened the FEMA concentration camps, jailing certain citizen journalists was something that we understood we needed to do, not because we wanted to, but because the formation of the BRICS central bank and the issuance of C-"Bits" was the first sign of the inevitable world war.
The CDC is one way to open concentration camps. In this timeline, it's another. These are truly mirror worlds.
Unless
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @01:31AM (2 children)
Those days didn't exist. The government has been violating our fundamental liberties and the Constitution since the beginning, and Clinton was only marginally better at best.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday July 10 2018, @12:37PM (1 child)
The only reason people think fondly on Bill Clinton's time in office was because he was handing out corporate giveaways like candy, in the form of de-regulation, which produced a speculative bubble. He managed to get out of office before it burst, but he is the one who set the stage for the economic reversals that came under W. W., of course, compounded all of that, as he would have done as a fellow teammate in the Uniparty. Obama, for his part, queued up the dagger thrust to the throat of the American middle class in the form of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Hillary was to have rammed home.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @01:41PM
In your comment about B. Clinton, you used the following words... candy, throat, burst, thrust, and rammed.
Hidden meaning?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @01:44AM (1 child)
Who said anything about this was good? These organizations shouldnt be making any recommendations about health/nutrition at all. They have a horrible track record.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @05:11PM
God himself designed women to feed their babies in this way.
His track record is impeccable.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @02:37AM (1 child)
The "willing intern" is a national hero. If not for her the "charismatic guy" would have dismantled social security. It was next on his adjenda after filling prisons, dismantling the welfare system, deregulating wallstreet and sending all the jobs south to mexico.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @05:29AM
You got 4 of the top 5.
Bill Clinton's 5 Major Achievements Were Longstanding GOP Objectives [googleusercontent.com] (orig)[2] [truthout.org]
You left out the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the resultant $200B giveaway to Big Internet.
The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen. [archive.li]
[1] It sounds like a j, but it takes a g.
...and there's only 1 d.
[2] truth-out recently became truthout, becoming an even bigger pile of page-building suckage. [w3.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @01:31AM
Supposedly - yes. Actually - no!
I'm for neocon and neo-liberal heads exploding as their disgraceful legacy is burnt to the ground.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Tuesday July 10 2018, @02:52AM (1 child)
[Tromp tromp tromp!]
"Who's that Tromping over my bridge? I'll come up there and eat you!"
Thanks for your opinion, Troll. I like the way that you divert the question and create a wonderful false comparison to the food pyramid ("if they got one thing wrong, then everything they have ever done and will ever do must be wrong!") then somehow tie a WHO delegate's submission into the Russian collusion in the 2016 election ("interventions are either all good, or all bad!"). There's a promising career for you over at Fox News.
Back to the original question though - why do you hate babies so much?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @04:02AM
The other day my friend was like "the clock is broke its stuck at 4:30" Then 4:30 rolled around and he asked "who fixed the clock?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 10 2018, @03:25PM
It was crony capitalism - specifically US crony capitalism - behind that.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves