🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep25.153147.13074@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> alan@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Alan S. Mazer) writes:
>Let's stop right here.  Unless Nestle is forcing hospitals to bottle feed
>infants the problem isn't with Nestle, it's with the hospital.  Sure Nestle
>may be trying to make a buck, but given that people in the Third World
>can't afford to buy the milk after they have the child (which you observed),
>seems like Nestle is basically giving away free milk without much hope of
>getting anything out of it.  Sounds like a good deed to me.

From the original article:

>2. When newborn babies are given bottles, they are less able to suckle
>well. This makes breastfeeding failure likely. The baby is then
>dependent on artificial milk.
>
>3. When the mother and baby leave hospital the milk is no longer free.
>At home the mother is forced to buy more milk which can cost 50% of the
>family income.

This is akin to saying that a heroin dealer is doing a good deed by
providing the first hit free; after all, who can afford heroin?  Nestle
is not doing anything just to do third worlders a kindness; they are
making big bucks off of sales of their formula.  They are, in fact,
creating addicts to their product, and the product is often dangerous
to the users.  The World Health Organization is not a bunch of weirdos;
their call for an end to third-world infant formula sales is based in
public health motiviations, not geopolitics.
--
-- Christophe

"Black is the color of non-conformity.  Everyone has to have it."
	T-shirt company executive