Breast milk has long been recommended as the healthiest milk a baby can drink and most advantageous to their health in the first year of life. According to an article published by Vox on July 10, 2018, research has also linked breastfeeding to higher rates of survival during the first year of life, higher intelligence, and lower rates of chronic diseases like obesity and diabetes later on. Finally, breastfeeding seems to boost maternal health, reducing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage right after birth; and in the longer term, Type 2 diabetes and breast, uterine and ovarian cancers among mothers.
On July 8ththe New York Times reported that the US delegation to the UN affiliated World Health Assembly sought to water down a resolution scheduled to be passed by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children The article states that during the deliberations, some American delegates even suggested the United States might cut its contribution to the World Health Organization if the resolution was passed. This opposition comes even after the American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirms its recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months, followed by continued breastfeeding as complementary foods are introduced, with continuation of breastfeeding for 1 year or longer as mutually desired by mother and infant.
According to a tweet attributed to President Trump, “The U.S. strongly supports breast feeding but we don’t believe women should be denied access to formula. Many women need this option because of malnutrition and poverty.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/well/breastfeeding-trump-resolution.html) Critics of this stance point to the malnutrition and poverty in the most impoverished parts of the world and our country as a main reason to encourage women to breast feed. This is due the cost of formula and use of unsanitary water to mix powered milk. Examples such as the Flint, Michigan tragedy where the water had an unhealthy level of lead for years and in underdeveloped countries across the world where no water purification exists illuminate the issue even in the US.
From an economic view, the World Health Organization and partners estimate that global economic losses from lower cognition associated with not breastfeeding reached more than US$ 300 billion in 2012, equivalent to 0.49% of the world’s gross national income.
Why such opposition? A report published by Common Dreams indicates international delegates to the United Nation’s World Health Assembly reflecting on their recent meeting, felt that U.S. representatives appeared to put the interests of the $70 billion baby food industry ahead of those of parents and children—and pressured other countries to do the same. It has been hypothesized that as baby formula sales have gone down in wealthy countries in recent years, the baby food industry has targeted developing countries with marketing campaigns. A UN resolution passed this spring—despite pushback from the U.S.—aimed to promote breastfeeding around the world.
What determines the policies and interpretation of laws specific to children and families in our country must be held up for examination. The lens through which this occurs is the issue. In this case, is it children’s health or corporate greed?
by Dr. Cathy Grace