Hundreds of government delegates at the assembly expected the resolution to be approved swiftly. The code urges countries to stop the inappropriate marketing of formula and other substitutes as better for babies and aims to ensure breastmilk substitutes are used safely - according to the directions, without diluting the formula - when necessary.
The report also noted the dilution ration must be correct or babies will suffer from malnutrition and the bottles must be adequately cleaned.
These companies have killed millions of babies over decades by aggressively promoting their baby formula.
The New York Times, meanwhile, published a piece that painted America as a bully. "If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid".
For their part, the United States delegates have said that it wasn't corporations' best interests they had in mind, but that they were instead trying to fight against "stigmatizing" women who choose to formula feed.
Fearing retaliation, several other countries backed away from the measure as well, according to the report. It simply said that mother's milk is the healthiest option for babies, and countries should seek to reduce inaccurate or misleading advertising about infant formula.
Canadian breastfeeding advocates say they're stunned by an especially aggressive US attempt to water down breastfeeding protections at a spring United Nations meeting. "It was Russian Federation that stepped in and introduced the resolution, but even then the US went around the sort of procedural norms and introduced a competing resolution which required sort of a two-day meeting to hammer out the differences between the resolutions", Jacobs told NPR. When Ecuador backed off - after all, no small country likes to be in Washington's gun sights - the USA threatened any other country that might want to introduce it.Читайте также: Donald Trump visit to United Kingdom 'in turmoil' inspires baby blimp protest
"The resolution as originally drafted placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children", an HHS spokesman said in the email to the Times.
Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.
'We recognize not all women are able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons.
President Trump responded by pointing out that his Administration is not anti-breastfeeding but in favor of giving women more choice-an exquisitely Trumpian way of co-opting the left's script. Caitlin Oakley, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, added in a statement that women who can't breastfeed should not be "stigmatized", but rather "equally supplied with information".
RT reached out to the WHO about the New York Times report, with a spokesperson stating that the organization is "not in a position to comment on exchanges between different delegations" at the assembly. The effort failed, but the USA delegation was accused of favoring the interests of formula companies over the health of children when it objected to that seemingly mild language as well as restrictions on marketing breast-milk substitutes to mothers. What is at stake: breastfeeding saves women and children's lives.
Companies that sell baby formula generate $70billion annually, but those sales have been stagnant due to the increased popularity of breastfeeding.
She says a prolonged debate eventually resulted in a watered-down resolution that effectively undermined long-standing efforts to support mother's milk.
They also sought to hinder World Health Organization efforts to provide lifesaving medications to undeveloped countries.При любом использовании материалов сайта и дочерних проектов, гиперссылка на обязательна.
«» 2007 - 2019 Copyright.
Автоматизированное извлечение информации сайта запрещено.
Код для вставки в блог