A New York Times piece published on Sunday about the purported opposition to breastfeeding by the U.S. at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, is stoking controversy.
The Times framed the U.S. opposition during the U.N.-affiliated meeting in alarming terms.
“A resolution to encourage breastfeeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly,” The Times piece noted.
“Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children, and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes,” the report continued. “Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant-formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.”
The president set the record straight via Twitter.
“The failing NY Times Fake News story today about breastfeeding must be called out. The U.S. strongly supports breastfeeding but we don’t believe women should be denied access to formula,” Trump posted on Twitter Monday afternoon. “Many women need this option because of malnutrition and poverty.”
The failing NY Times Fake News story today about breast feeding must be called out. 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.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2018
The U.S. stance on the health issue was enough to draw heated reaction from a number of progressive-leaning websites. “The Trump administration takes a bold stance against mother’s milk,” a New Republic headline read.
“And now the U.S. Gov is against breastfeeding in favor of formula companies,” a DailyKos story blared.
Ecuador’s introduction of the breastfeeding resolution held that “mother’s milk is healthiest for children, and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast-milk substitutes,” as The Times reported.
U.S. officials allegedly threatened to withhold military aid and to impose trade sanctions on that Latin American country if it did not drop the resolution.
The pro-breastfeeding resolution would pass as drafted — the U.S. objections were unsuccessful — and The Times suggested it was due to the actions of “the Russians.”
There was actually a much more sane and sensible reason for the American-held position.
“It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them,” said The Times.
There was actually a much more sane and sensible reason for the American-held position.
“The resolution as originally drafted placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children,” a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told The Times in an email.
Related: ‘Expert’ Says We Must Ask Baby’s Permission to Change a Diaper
“We recognize not all women are able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons. These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so,” the spokesperson added.
It remains puzzling as to why the liberal media blame U.S. protections of formula companies, as even The Times had to note: “Although lobbyists from the baby food industry attended the meetings in Geneva, health advocates said they saw no direct evidence that they played a role in Washington’s strong-arm tactics.”
Kyle Becker is a content writer and producer with LifeZette. Follow him on Twitter.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.