Guest essay by Eric Worrall
An infant feeding specialist has called for curbs on the availability and use of baby formula, because of high CO2 emissions associated with its production.
Call to curb baby formula emissions
By AAP 3:31am Dec 4, 2019
…
Dr Julie Smith, who has studied the economics of infant feeding for over 20 years, says greenhouse gas emissions caused by milk formula production have contributed to global environmental damage.
“The last decade has seen a global boom in formula feeding but this takes the world backwards in the face of contemporary global environmental and population health challenges,” the Australian National University researcher said on Wednesday.
In a paper published in the International Breastfeeding Journal, Dr Smith argued much of the increase in emissions from formula manufacturing can be linked to the expanding toddler milk product market.
She said the products were not only harmful for the environment, but the World Health Organisation has deemed it unnecessary and potentially harmful for children.
“We have got to reduce the manufacture and use of milk formula,” Dr Smith said.
…
Read more: https://www.9news.com.au/national/call-to-curb-baby-formula-emissions/11cd81c4-e47d-45dc-888d-c4d95e8917e7
Dr. Smith’s call for reduced production of baby formula will likely be well received by climate activists, who frequently describe babies as a burden on the planet and a threat to global climate stability.
The Chinese were real adept at making their baby milk formulae go a lot further, without using any additional milk. They just added a lot of melamine to the milk formulae and they got twice as much baby milk formulae, without all the added GHG emissions which will do in all those future babies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
Unfortunately…
Not every woman can breastfeed.
Not every woman can Pump and Store at work.
Not every woman can Stay at Home to rear their children beyond Breast feeding.
Not every woman can produce breastmilk due to current/prior health problems and medications.
Not every woman can …
What a horrible sexist attitude. “Not every woman” should be replaced by “Not every man, woman, or LBGTQI”.
Misogynistic to the core! This person must be destroyed in social media or there is no justice.
Curious George, how’s come you neglected to include cats and dogs in your “replacement” list of “non-breast milk providers”?
Are you prejudices of felines and canines, or what?
Perhaps you could have a Wet Nurse Chimpanzee.
Just go directly to the other potential source and put a Kangaroo Pouch on a Cow and attach the newborn directly to the udder
I see your point CG
Certainly Male Partners and Singles can adopt babies and would also not be able to breastfeed than either.
Genetically speaking, it goes without saying that you probably won’t be nursing through self produced breastmilk if you have a “Y” Chromosome
How dare you imply that humans with Y chromosomes aren’t women!
Oh wait, you passed elementary school biology, that’s how you dare.
Gender fluid types will hunt you down for your blasphamy
With apologies, for penance I shall do 15 Hail Mikey’s and 20 ReGretas
“or LBGTQI”
The correct acronym should be “BLIGT” (Bisexual, Lesbian, Intersex, Gay & Transvestite). To be successful, an acronym should be easily pronounceable. It also helps if it describes the subject matter.
or BOTH parents could feed?
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/britains-first-transgender-couple-allow-their-5-year-old-child-begin-transition
3yr olds in sex transition surgery?
If babies cannot, for whatever reason, be fed human breast milk …….. then those babies should be fed bovine udder milk, ……… whole milk, ….. no skim milk or substitute milk product.
Babies have “taste buds” too ….. and they prefer breast milk first, ….. whole cow milk secondly ….. and dislike the taste of “baby formula” pseudo milk.
There is also the occasion where the infant is Lactose intolerant or has another Milk Allergy.
They need non-dairy “Formula” to survive.
So, since it is needed for them and would therefore need to be produced, It would be impossible to eliminate its production and would need to be publicly available. If it is publicly available anyone could buy it, and if anyone could buy it, the product would need to be produced in such quantity that it were never unavailable or the infant with lactose issues would either be made to starve or be forced to be sick.
thats when goatmilk was used prior to powdered before and kids were fine
the whole lactose intolerance thing is crap
unless youre asian and oddly theyre doing a massive trade in cowmilk formulas
hmm?
My daughter is 6th generation native Californian of European descent and has been lactose intolerant since birth.
Two many cows, even more co2, hoist by their own petard. There is no acceptable solution except banning babies
Samuel
You said, “Babies .. dislike the taste of ‘baby formula’ pseudo milk.” How many did you ask to arrive at that conclusion?
@ Clyde S
Clyde, I didn’t have to ask, ….. my daughter’s reaction to “baby formula” was proof enough.
She would cry when she was hungry, ……. but would only eat (suck) 1/3 to 1/2 a bottle before she quit ….. and would want more within a hour or so.
One morning I said “nuff is enough” and I dumped the formula, filler her bottle with whole milk, warmed it and gave it to her.
She sucked down all the whole milk …. and slept for the next 4 hours.
She was having “hunger tantrums” and that formula wasn’t alleviating them.
Cheers
Samuel
So, a sample of one?
Clyde,
“YUP”, ……. and that is a 100% agreement, …. which is far better than the 97% agreement by the “climate scientists” about CAGW.
The nutritional requirements of infant human beings and calves may be somewhat similar, but are by no means the same.
Cow milk alone is no substitute for human breast milk.
Baby formula is.
Human milk is perfect for a baby in every possible way.
Cow milk is perfect for baby cows.
Giving a new born of any species inadequate nutrition can be anywhere between dangerous, damaging, and even fatal.
Certain developmental abnormalities relating to lack of essential elements and amino acids can cause irreversible problems such as neurological and cognitive abnormalities and/or deficits.
The problem with saying stuff like this is, beyond simply being factually incorrect, is that someone could read it and believe it, and it could form the basis of what they assume to be factual information about infant nutrition, and wind up screwing some kid up permanently.
Some people are very stupid, and do things that hurt people or animals and pets all the time, without even knowing what they are doing is dangerous and even criminally negligent.
If people are stupid enough to feed a kitten a vegan diet, they are dumb enough to believe cow milk is fine for a baby to have.
Just in case this is too complicated, here is the condensed version: No one should EVER feed cow milk to a human being until that child is at least one year old!
You could kill the kid, and at the very least the baby will get sick and have severe problems.
https://www.livestrong.com/article/515068-what-happens-if-a-newborn-drinks-cow-milk/
Nicholas McGinley – December 4, 2019 at 8:28 pm
Nicholas, sounds to me like you are heavily invested (stock/bonds) in the production and sales of “infant formula” ……. or you are just a seriously miseducated, experience deficit person railing about something you know absolutely nothing about.
Try to correct your problem by reading the following, to wit:
Cheers
Cheers yourself Samuel.
Wow, what a comment.
Apparently you feel deeply offended to be contradicted, and have concocted a comment that starts of being delusional to the point of being laughable.
Specifically when you opined: “sounds to me like you are heavily invested (stock/bonds) in the production and sales of “infant formula…”
If pointing out factual information to counter a load of misinformed bullshit sounds to you like a sure indication of a large financial interest in whatever is the subject being discussed, you may need a psychiatrist, or else you are just a dumbass.
Next you allow for the possibility that I am merely “seriously miseducated” and suffering from a deficit of experience.
This is very generous of you, as you might have asserted I was deliberately lying, and had merely a modest or small financial interest in the matter. So thank you for that. You obviously have a big heart…or maybe you meant it as an insult, and were serious when you said I had no idea what I was talking about.
Personally, this last possibility seems unlikely to me…as the link you posted contains the exact information in very similar language to the comment I made.
Although I cannot rule out that my lack of clarity as to your intent and justification is because you have the reading comprehension of a half-witted six year old (perhaps one reared on cows milk from birth and thus cognitively impaired through no fault of your own), as well I tend to discount this possibility rather highly since you are plenty savvy enough to have shrewdly (albeit duplicitously I must add) edited the very next section of your carefully constructed rejoinder, in order to not only change the entire context of the article your are quoting, by a very well thought out editing of the quoted material (gosh, Samuel…pretty sure that is a big no-no) in which you took part of one paragraph and, giving no indication of having done so, pasted in together with part of another paragraph which came BEFORE the first part and was in an entirely different section with a different source!
Dang! You must really be mad at ME!
To have gone to such a great effort to change these paragraphs around, stick them together out of order, leave out parts that completely contradict what you are asserting and agree almost word for word with exactly what I said to begin with…well!
That is pretty amazing.
Way down at the end of the wiki article is a section labelled History, with several subheadings, one of which is evaporated milk (recall however that you cited and I specifically referred to UNALTERED cows milk), and that sections reads as follows:
“In the 1920s and 1930s, evaporated milk began to be widely commercially available at low prices, and several clinical studies suggested that babies fed evaporated milk formula thrive as well as breastfed babies.
These findings are not supported by modern research. These studies, accompanied by the affordable price of evaporated milk and the availability of the home icebox initiated a tremendous rise in the use of evaporated milk formulas.[4] By the late 1930s, the use of evaporated milk formulas in the United States surpassed all commercial formulas, and by 1950 over half of all babies in the United States were reared on such formulas.”
Well Golly Samuel!
Look at what you did there!
I saw it, anyone who read it saw it, and it changes the whole thrust of the passage.
You know this, as you left it out, on purpose, right after YOU wrote that I needed to “correct MY problem”!
Here, let me show the part you left out:
“These findings are not supported by modern research.”
WOW!
That is just plain deliberate dishonesty Samuel, unless you are just joking around I suppose. Are you an Adam Schiff fan by any chance?
In any case, I do not really see how we went from straight declarations regarding cows milk, also known as “bovine udder” secretions, specifically you saying without qualification that
(This is you)
“If babies cannot, for whatever reason, be fed human breast milk …….. then those babies should be fed bovine udder milk, ……… whole milk, ….. no skim milk or substitute milk product.”
to some discussion of what people did decades ago, or debunked studies from many decades in the past, let alone how an article that plainly states that “These findings are not supported by modern research”, somehow backs up what you are saying and proves me not only a self interested and self dealing shill for the baby formula industry, but an uneducated dupe to boot.
Sorry…not seeing it.
Especially since the article YOU cited as proof of my idiocy and your soaring intellect and perfect correctness also said, in plain language mind you, that:
“Besides breast milk, infant formula is the only other milk product which the medical community considers nutritionally acceptable for infants under the age of one year (as opposed to cow’s milk, goat’s milk, or follow-on formula). Supplementing with solid food in addition to breast milk or formula begins during weaning, and most babies begin supplementing about the time their first teeth appear, usually around the age of six months.
Although cow’s milk is the basis of almost all infant formula, plain cow’s milk is unsuited for infants because of its high casein content and low whey content, and untreated cow’s milk is not recommended before the age of 12 months. The infant intestine is not properly equipped to digest non-human milk, and this may often result in diarrhea, intestinal bleeding and malnutrition. To reduce the negative effect on the infant’s digestive system, cow’s milk used for formula undergoes processing to be made into infant formula. This includes steps to make protein more easily digestible and alter the whey-to-casein protein balance to one closer to human milk, the addition of several essential ingredients (often called “fortification”, see below), the partial or total replacement of dairy fat with fats of vegetable or marine origin, etc.”
Did you get that?
You cited the article.
You read it carefully and thoroughly enough to find and edit paragraphs to make a deliberately false paragraph and then added quotation marks as if it was an actual quote.
So I really doubt that you somehow missed that this sentence in the article YOU misquoted said this:
“plain cow’s milk is unsuited for infants because of its high casein content and low whey content, and untreated cow’s milk is not recommended before the age of 12 months. The infant intestine is not properly equipped to digest non-human milk, and this may often result in diarrhea, intestinal bleeding and malnutrition”
Which, although I had not read this article, is almost exactly what I said, and which I wrote just from by own prior knowledge, gleaned not recently but somewhere along the way in my many years of inexperience and deficit of actual knowledge.
But I wanted to point out that this subject was never a part of my FORMAL miseducation, although my silly adherence to intellectual honesty and propensity for insisting on accurately quoting sources probably is. But hey that is just me.
I probably read all about this many years ago and it just stuck in my noggin well enough to be in line with some other pack of jackasses, that are similarly miseducated and woefully misinformed, and that go by the haughty sounding appellation “American Academy of Pediatrics”.
But I especially like the way you followed up on this perfidious cut-n-paste…by placing a section from the beginning of the article AFTER the part from far later in the article in an entirely separate section, but again left out the many places in the whole long article where it states quite clearly that what you asserted is wrong, and what I asserted is entirely correct.
I have no idea what motivates someone to follow up some off the cuff bullshit with a deliberately crafted, transparently false, easily discovered and pointed out series of underhanded lies.
Let alone how you could have the cujones to paste that crap on a site like this and to do it in conjunction with a scurrilous and insulting and seemingly delusional diatribe against me.
When I say something that is incorrect and someone points it out and provides correct information to inform me and everyone else, I do my best to take it in stride or explain why I said what I said, or explain why I had and expressed such a mistaken point of view.
I really do not think anyone with even a shred of integrity, self respect, or intellectual honesty would ever instead choose to go out of their way to make some crap up and make up some nonsense and lies.
That is why I am thinking you must just be goofing around, or doing some sort of parody, a la Adam Schiff, and I am merely too obtuse to see it, and mistook your good natured humor for something else entirely.
And here I shall end with a big old *facepalm* moment.
Cheers, and toodles too!
Nicholas, … do you feel better now, …….. after all your wild arsed “rambling rhetoric” in your futile attempt to lessen your embarrassment?
Nicholas McGinley – December 5, 2019 at 4:05 pm
McGinley, ……. GETTA CLUE, ……. it is asinine of you to claim that “evaporated milk” is ALTERED cow’s milk ……. simply because water (H2O) was removed and it was packaged in a sterilized can, to wit:
“Evaporated milk, known in some countries as “unsweetened condensed milk”, is a shelf-stable canned cow’s milk product where about 60% of the water has been removed from fresh milk.”
And GETTANOTHER CLUE, ……. McGinley, ……. evaporated milk is reconstituted water (H2O) before it is fed to an infant.
And herein you add insult to your self-inflicted injury, to wit:
“DUH”, so what, McGinley, ….. those “modern researchers” were undoubtedly employed by the formula manufacturers.
And McGinley, ….. modern research also proves that CAGW is “right-as-rain” and that humans are the direct cause of it. Iffen you believe that “modern research” proves evaporated milk is bad for babies …….. then you must surely also believe that “modern research” proves humans are causing ‘global warming’, RIGHT.
Time to GETTANOTHER CLUE, ……. McGinley, ……. if “by 1950 over half of all babies in the United States were reared on evaporated milk” …… then cite me the statistics that MILLIONS of those pre/post-1950 infants that were fed “evaporated milk” ….. suffered terrible consequences of diarrhea, intestinal bleeding and malnutrition.
Don’t be “blowing smoke” at me, ….. McGinley, it won’t work. I was a teenager in the 50’s and no such dastardly problem such as you attested to ever happened.
Samuel, you are not only a jackass but an idiot.
Note that nowhere is it asserted in any of these entries that babies were fed evaporated milk, but rather evaporated milk FORMULA!
I take back what I said about doubting your apparently reading comprehension ability.
It is very simple…you said something that is factually false, and no where does anyone, except apparently you, think that cow’s milk is in any way acceptable as a food for newborns or infants prior to age one year.
In fact feeding an infant cow’s milk can produce immediate and severe illness, as they are quite simply unable to digest it, it does not have the correct constituent nutrients, and can and does cause diarrhea, anemia, intestinal bleeding, malnutrition, and can even be fatal. In fact any such illness in a newborn can wind up being fatal.
Calm down and get real…you are wrong, what you said is not just irresponsible and demonstrably untrue, it very well could result in severe illness for anyone who believed you and did it.
The facts are not in dispute among people who know what they are talking about, and even the source you gave to back up your BS contradicted you.
I have no idea what your problem is, but I have known plenty of people who act like you do when contradicted…you are emotionally incapable of admitting you are wrong, and so you lash out with insults, you act out by going out of your way to make stuff up and to tell transparent lies…in general do anything but what you should do, what anyone should do when they are wrong.
Nothing I said was rambling or rhetorical.
It was direct and to the point.
I did however make the mistake of giving you a face saving way to simply drop it, by suggesting that perhaps you were joking around.
You really are a half wit and a liar.
Just to be clear…here is the part you missed:
Babies were fed evaporated milk formulas.
You left out the key word.
Not that it matters.
You are arguing a straw man by bringing up several irrelevancies, such as evaporated milk usage over half a century ago as the base for powdered formulas used to feed babies.
The very article you are again misquoting makes it very clear that babies were not reared on evaporated milk, but evaporated milk FORMULAS!
It says so over and over.
The text of the sections of the wiki article describe how these homemade formulas became popular, and that concurrently there were several alternatives like Similac and Enfamil which by the 1960s became more popular that homemade evaporated milk FORMULAS:
“By the early 1960s, commercial formulas were more commonly used than evaporated milk formulas in the United States, which all but vanished in the 1970s.”
And by the way do you ever read the source materials for wiki information?
The references are all listed.
They elaborate in much more detail exactly what I am talking about:
“ABSTRACT
The early years of the 20th century were notable for improvements in general sanitation, dairying practices and milk handling. Most infants were breast-fed, often with some formula feeding as well. Availability of the home icebox permitted safe storage of milk and infant formula, and by the 1920s, feeding of orange juice and cod liver oil greatly decreased the incidence of scurvy and rickets. Use of evaporated milk for formula preparation decreased bacterial contamination and curd tension of infant formulas. From 1930 through the 1960s, breast-feeding declined and cow’s milk and beikost were introduced into the diet at earlier and earlier ages. Although commercially prepared formulas, including iron-fortified formulas replaced home-prepared formulas, few infants were breast-fed or formula fed after 4–6 mo of age. Iron deficiency was prevalent. From 1970 through 1999, a resurgence of breast-feeding was associated with a prolongation of formula feeding and an increase in usage of iron-fortified formulas. By the end of the century, formula feeding of older infants had largely replaced feeding of fresh cow’s milk and the prevalence of iron deficiency had greatly decreased.”
https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/131/2/409S/4686955#FN1
It was well know half a century ago that using cows milk either directly or in reconstituted form as a base for homemade formula was a bad idea and made a lot of babies sick and malnourished.
It also explains very clearly how in those days, milk was supplemented with other foods as young as 4 to 6 months of age. In fact that has always been the case. As soon as babies are able to eat something other than milk, mothers do so, and always have.
It is also very likely the case that even woman who used formula also breastfed at least sometimes and at least initially. Not doing so would be very painful prior to the advent of breast pumps.
Here is another of the references for the material you have misrepresented, lied about, and selectively edited:
“If you are a “mature” pediatricianone older than 40 years or sothere
is a good chance that, if you were not breastfed as an infant, you were fed
a formula created by mixing 13 oz of evaporated milk with 19 oz of water and
two tablespoons of either corn syrup or table sugar. Every day, parents prepared
a day’s worth of this formula, transferred it to bottles that they had sterilized
in a pan of boiling water, and stored it in a refrigerator until used. In addition
to formula, infants received supplemental vitamins and iron.1
Infant nutrition has a fascinating history that began long before pediatricians
recommended evaporated milk formula, and eventually commercial formula, as alternatives
to breastfeeding. In this first article in an occasional series that puts the
practice of pediatrics into historical perspective, we’ll take a look at how
infant formulas were developed and how they evolved over time.”
As far as making comparisons to climate science, and pretending that this in any way backs up your opinion on feeding babies, we all know that nothing and no one should ever be taken as factual just because someone said it. And least of all, information that was in the past believed to be true or scientific should be treated as what it is…out of date information.
In 1950 lots of people believed lots of things that most people recognize as hogwash today.
But even when people thought there was an advanced civilization building canals on Mars, and that continents could not move, and rocks never fell from the sky…even then almost everyone knew that cows milk, whether whole and fresh or evaporated, had to be mixed with formula to be in any way suitable for feeding to babies, and that a lot of kids were malnourished if they only got formula and you need to give them food ASAP.
Learn to read, stop lying, get a grip, and learn some humility.
You are wrong, and everyone knows it.
Nicholas McGinley – December 6, 2019 at 2:10 pm
TA DAH, now we know why you are obsessed with the word “FORMULA”, … to wit:
McGinley, …… GIVE IT UP, …….. you are “talking trash”, …. talking way, way above your “pay scale”.
Re-read this paragraph which is repeated below.
“DUH”, the only “FORMULA” associated with “evaporated milk” is the manufacturing “formula” for the production of “cans of evaporated milk”, to wit:
McGinley, climb back on your favorite “bar stool” at the local pub where you can control the conversation with your “tripe and piffle” nonsense.
Nicholas McGinley – December 6, 2019 at 2:10 pm
McGinley, ….. you really DON’T HAVE A CLUE, ……. do you?
The use of evaporated milk for feeding infants ……. had nothing whatsoever to do with the production and sale of canned infant formula.
Since the early 1940’s and post-1950, when millions of females joined the “workforce”, became pregnant and birthed a child, they did not quit their jobs, …. thus evolved a dire need for a means to feed infants when their mothers didn’t have the time or were working, ……. AKA, infant formula to the rescue.
And now days, lots of “new” mothers don’t even know how to boil water, let alone prepare and feed their child warm cow’s milk, evaporated milk or some other homemade concoction..
no not every woman can
but the majority using formulas damned well CAN and should breastfeed.
and not because CC but because its better for the kid and helps get the gut and immune sytem working
Im not big on vaccines but mums also pass some immunity TO kids via milk
formula wipes that out
and have you READ the ingredients list on a can of that stuff?
admittedly its not as bad as the formula supplements given to aged folks in care
I have a can here and wouldnt feed it to my chooks after I read the chemical list of NONfood therein
theyd be better off with thebaby mixes being honest.
You forgot human milk has anti-cancer properties.
The very first period after birth is the most critical period of time and the part pf breastmilk which contains the highest proportion of essential immunoglobulins.
This stuff is so important and distinct it has it’s own name…it is called colostrum.
It the first few days of milk and especially the very first milk to be expressed, looks and is quite different from milk expressed even a few days later.
Colostrum is very concentrated and densely packed with criticfal immune factors from the mother, which are intended to caot and line the intestinal tract of the newborn, and kickstart the immune system of the infant with a large infusion of protective antibodies from the mothers immune system.
Basically the baby gets an initial sampling of every antibody in the mothers immune system, which theoretically contains the needed information to prime the part of the babies immune system called the adaptive immune system…information that is specific to the actual infections and invasive organisms that the mother has acquired over her lifetime. Although it should be pointed out that it is currently believed to be the case that in full term human newborns, the epithelium of the intestinal lumen has already closed by the time of birth, and little if any of these antibodies/immunoglobulins are able to penetrate and be absorbed into the baby’s bloodstream. Unlike for example, and in particular…COWS (ahem!)
Recent (relatively speaking) research has shown that colostrum is rich in various components of the innate immune system as well, in addition to a wide range of cytokines and growth factors.
The anti-human, eugenic underbelly of the “climate” BS is now hanging out for the world to see.
They want the herd culled, full stop.
Melamine is a basic plastic. It would have no nutritional value. How is that a good thing?
If baby formula can be demonized for its CO2 emissions during production, then virtually everything is fair game, as well as pets of all kinds that emit CO2. Sodas, bottled water, beer, all alcoholic beverages are all CO2 emitters and not essential to human life (although many would contest this). The vast variety of goods found in a drug store can be seriously culled, as well as the variety of cereals, soups, meats, even spices. Where do we stop? Shall we reduce human existence to mere existence and pretend that we are saving the planet from a false disaster? Meanwhile the powerful elite will be having a perpetual party at our expense while they force us to make their party happen.
Melamine is poisonous to many animals, in particular to cats.
And not just somewhat toxic, but immediately fatal.
When some unscrupulous Chinese company substituted melamine for actual protein in order to fool the tests used for protein content, the result was a whole lot of dead pets in the US, and very quickly.
At the time one instance of this occurred, I was using the food with melamine in it to feed my cats.
Luckily, the clever beast took one sniff and walked away and refused to even nibble it.
Other people’s pets were not so lucky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_pet_food_recalls
Nicholas that led Chinese individuals to systematically clean out baby formula from supermarkets in various cities in Australia, in some instances it was stolen. There was quite the ‘black market’ going on in regards to tinned baby formula, all of it being sold on in China. The supermarkets had to enforce a two tin only rule, but people just went through different cash registers, extra times. It went on for quite some time and was causing considerable stress to young Australian parents.
yeah but it read as nitrogen=protien on a simple test which is how they scammed the makers and got it into usa and elsewhere in the makers of the highend products all on the same premises ie Menu Foods.
it also shows how slack the premaking testing is for human and pet food ingredients coming from 3rd world places to 1st world.
and at one time they were applying melamine to fields in usa in the idiotic idea that it would add nitrogen to soils
of course the plants didnt uptake it either.
but someone made money for a while
My understanding is they took advantage, purposefully and premeditatedly, of the particular testing then in place for the protein content of that type of product.
I believe it was the case at the time, that no one had even considered that any food supplier would be so unethical as to substitute in a poisonous substance, or really any type of deliberate substitution, in order to fool for a time some testing protocol and to do it in something that was going to be consumed as food.
The fact is there is little to prevent a company in the food industry from deliberately contaminating the food products or ingredients they sell, and to get away with it for a short period of time…right up until people or (in this case) animals start getting sick or dropping dead.
At that point it is very much for certain that the evidence will be followed backwards and what has been done will be discovered.
I do not recall what if anything was done to punish those who were responsible, and can only wonder if the people who did it knew what the consequences would be, but I do know anyone who was found to have done anything to contaminate even a single persons food in any way, is subject in the USA to very harsh punishment. Even spitting in someone’s food (which will not kill anyone or even make them sick unless the person is gravely ill or harboring some severe illness) will get a person locked up in prison in the US.
And more and more, little distinction is being drawn in certain sorts of cases between peoples’ pets and people themselves in such cases.
Deliberately harming pets is a serious crime in the US.
Even laws that allow for the killing of vermin, in many of not all states, stipulate that it is illegal to do so in a inhumane way. You can shoot a nuisance raccoon, for example, but you may not poison them or catch them in a lasso and strangle them. Etc.
Right now there is another in a long series of recalls involving romaine lettuce that has sickened people due to being contaminated with a dangerous strain of e. coli bacteria.
This current outbreak has been traced to products originating in the Salinas Valley of California. As in past suck events, I find myself wondering if this is due to a deliberate act by a single individual or individuals.
It certainly could be, but it seems that if someone is doing such a thing, like spraying a warehouse full of lettuce with water contaminated by human feces, it could be hard to catch them.
It could be something like a person with very bad hygiene working on a packing assembly line, or irrigation with contaminated water right before a crop is harvested. Or any number of other scenarios.
But it is certainly not normal or in any way common for a virulent strain of gut bacteria to be all over a field crop and to remain on a harvested and shipped product. One wonders how many possible ways exist for this to be possible?
It seems rare enough that it is conceivable that all cases over many states and multiple years could all be the work of a single very evil or very careless person.
And I rather doubt it could be by accident or random carelessness. I think if that were the case there would not be s small number of clusters of cases, but more like random instances anywhere and everywhere…which is not seen.
Two people were reportedly punished by death.
This is all in Wiki, but take a pinch of salt. It is China, prone to punishing and prone to scapegoating.
Women should feed babies like birds do chew up some food and spit it into their mouth.
Why don’t these educated? People do something useful.
I know you’re kidding but that practice is associated with very high rates of tooth decay in children. Apparently it gives little ones a healthy dose of adult style bacteria that then feast on young teeth. nThere’s a whole drive going on in my community to stop the practice.
Justin,
Isn’t that just when the bottles are left in the baby’s mouth when they self-feed, so to speak, as opposed to a bottle being held and removed when the baby is done? I ask because that was the theory when I was young having babies. I breast fed but that’s what we were told back then, as I recall.
It took a lot of dedication and perseverance to breast feed my first and was only accomplished with the help of La Leche League. With my second, she was allergic to all milk including mine and to the alternate formula as well. I finally quit listening to the doctors when she was four months old and not gaining weight and screaming after one minute of breast feeding and projectile vomiting the substitute formula. I started her on baby food then and the first day she went through two jars of cereal and six jars of baby food. The poor thing was starving. After that, I did my duty by making baby food from scratch but regretted I could not breast feed her.
These people should leave mothers alone and stop with the guilt trips.
Look deeper. “These people” – generally support zero population policies. This is nothing but a ploy.
Absolutely right. Progressives literally do NOTHING in good faith. Everything has agenda behind it.
What a loon.
With apologies to the doctor and my Australian friends:
My cousin (Ph D Engineering – Rice U) visited Australia awhile back. He was asked if he had a criminal record to which he replied “I didn’t know it was still a requirement for entry into the country” ;<)
Engineering PhD and a history buff.
+1^100
Farmer,
That is funny! Thanks for the laugh!
Good one, Farmer!
Farmer;
Thanks for the chuckle! Hope your cousin didn’t wind up getting diverted to the “special exam” room.
This global warming, emergency or whatever they will call it next is nothing but A Religion for the feeble minded.
So where are her numbers that back up the claim? What percentage of total CO2 production is due to baby formula baby formula? Should I be more concerned with baby formula or coal fired power plants?
Neither, CO2 doubling may have at most zero to about 1.6 C temperature effect making it a moot point. Since you read this site I assume you already know that and you question was rhetorical. Have a good day.
Bugs, Feed The Babies Insects, Bugs !! Oh And Meal Worms, Worms !! If It’s Good Enough For Geeze, It’s Good Enough For Ganders !!
Publish or perish and grant tailoring to please the high priests doling out dollars.
Tits for Tots
Crank up the abortion mills and the “problem” goes away.
Tack on some climate emergency boiler plate text to any analysis and get published, as easy and cynical as that.
How about kill off most of the termites in the world? They produce about 30% more CO2 than humanity does.
How about ocean fertilization? Very cheap and would increase the number of fish and marine mammals dramatically, making up for any that people take as a big bonus.
I guess since those very effective ideas don’t promote world eco-socialism they won’t find traction among our elite.
Clyde, yes, as a mother who did breastfeed, my son certainly loved formula on the rare occasions he got it.
My daughter, as I mentioned below, was lactose intolerant including to breast milk but couldn’t handle the substitute, either. I fed her baby food once I woke up to the fact that the doctor was nuts and wouldn’t listen to me, which she handled just fine from four months on. We moved to a different part of the US and I discovered Acidolpholus milk when she was around 2 and she handled that fine.
PCMan,
Some think it is a whole lot more than 30%.
Termites produce more CO2 each year than all living things combined – Ice Age Now
bit.ly/2MOUPRm
My babies never had formula. I nursed all of them until they could be weaned onto cup and solids at about 18 months. Saves a huge amount of money, is better for babies, a whole lot easier for mom once mom and baby get the knack of it, and no carbon footprint. I’m not sure how one reconciles that forcing all mothers to breastfeed though. That would seem to impinge on their personal choices. However consistency has never been one of the alarmists strong points.
Why is Dr Julie Smith so worried about the welfare of the babies? She only needs to be worried over the babies of the noble elite Climate Fascism, in accordance with the English royalty, who prefer their people reduced to count between 500 and 1000 million.
So Dr. Julie, if you are a true believer, you should not publish papers, you think could save babies.
Kind regards
Old Carbon Dioxide Exhaler
Another waste of Grant money 😐
I thought they agreed to eat the babies.
That was AOC who didn’t protest the protester advocating eating the babies at her meeting. AOC just stood there, looking stunned as usual. I thought it was really old dead crusty climate sceptics only that the Swedish professor was advocating get eaten. Maybe he meant everyone that died. In that case, Greta should watch her back as she grows older, just in case he meant eat everyone who dies or is about to be dead, and that professor sounded a little Mad. That old professor probably thinks Greta would be a tasty snack. This is all turning out very weird. CO2 must make certain people crazy who have the gene. This is definitely a genetic disorder, this CO2 madness. Drink more milk as a kid to avoid that gene catching the CO2 malignant disorder.
An ‘infant feeding specialist’ who is more concerned with climate change shouldn’t have a job, and certainly should have credentials questioned or removed.
It’s really a case of priorities. And progressives have hidden-agenda behind literally every move they make, every word they speak.
is she REALLY gave a sh*t about a baby related issue shes call for banning disposable nappies!!!
filthy stinking bins full in every street and every landfill
Don’t do it because of a sociopolitical climate crisis, but because breastfeeding offers benefits beyond nutrition for both the mother and her child.
@n.n., agree with both you and Dr Smith about natural feeding is the safest in most cases. The issue here is her involvement of Climate Change, in order to have her study financed.
She need the extra money for the new Tesla she is buying as Christmas present for her husband./SARC
If she buying a Tesla she will need more more just to pay the towing fees. I saw on being loaded up on the freeway last Saturday.
It was published in the International Breastfeeding Journal. I am not familiar with this publication but I would hazard a guess that it has an agenda which does not include formula milk. Someone has just had the bright idea of linking the issue to the currently fashionable cause. There was probably a grant to be grabbed.
When my first was born, my (liberal.) sister gifted me a subscription to a rather radical “mothering-type” mag that she liked. Even in the 80s, they could be quite rabid. Among their agenda was – “formula is evil”, and every baby should be breastfed, no excuses allowed. This smacks of merely the latest ploy for them to scream “witch, let’s burn all the formula.” What I also found interesting, – some of these very pious “crunchy” mama’s would then shove their babies in daycare. The irony obviously went over their heads.
I stayed home with my children.
According to global warming theory we’re guilty if we eat meat, guilty if we have kids, guilty if we feed kids, guilty if we protect ourselves and family from extreme heat or cold, guilty if we drive, fly or travel by any mechanism requiring fossil fuels, guilty if we won’t swallow all fo the dogma without asking questions and guilty if we inhabit planet Earth. By what natural law is surviving, thriving and procreating a crime? It would seem this is exactly the behaviour nature intended if nature had a will.
Find something poor people use. Find an excuse to ban it.
Socialists used to do this in the name of helping the poor, but their religion has progressed. Now they do it in the name of saving the world.
Watermelons!
Just wait until they discover how much carbon dioxide breweries emit! It will be fun to watch them insist on reductions.
And bakeries. No beer, no bread, no meat.
My advice? Inject yourself with chlorophyl and learn how to photosynthesize, pretty soon it’ll be the only way to get anything to eat.
David
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/anthropogenic-global-warming-and-its-causes/
Next some genius will want to ban C-sections because of all the carbon derived resources used & deem the outcome of that ban being the mysterious Way of Gaia.
oh dont worry they HAVE run items on the climate harm done by anaesthetics. how they figured people could have surgery without?
ok injectables not inhalables
and thats a good thing cos inhaled ones do seem to have some serious damage risks to the recipients
but
theyre still the first choice used on KIDS where adults get IV
go figure
I only allow my dogs to have IV anaesthasia.
“In a paper published in the International Breastfeeding Journal, Dr Smith argued much of the increase in emissions from formula manufacturing can be linked to the expanding toddler milk product market.”
I’m just curious, does anyone know if she provided the math and science to support her claim that there are marked increases in emissions from milk formula manufactures, that there are even any particular evil CO2 emissions from their production of formula or was it all just pulled out of CO2 laden thin air?
Whatever, this sounds quite misogynistic to me.
You don’t need facts “Climate Change” did it.
Dr. Smith needs to convince mother’s to have fewer babies. How about the CO2 involved in the generation of mother’s milk. But the reality is that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.
For the last 10 years, I have been part of a mission project to raise $ to buy infant formula for babies who are born HIV negative, but the mothers are HIV positive in an area of SE Zambia. Without this formula, the babies would either likely contract HIV or die of starvation. Our team makes items to sell. We send $1500 / month to Scottish missionaries who buy and distribute the formula, which feeds about 40-60 babies depending on the price of the formula. The missionaries say that this project has saved the lives of at least 500 babies .
I am astonished by the sheer ignorance and arrogance of this proposal!!
thats a generous and useful reason to use it. probably the best Ive read. and those babies might benefit well above the avg by getting some nutrition they wouldnt via a malnourished african mums HIV or not.
Back when I was a university student in the late 1970’s, there was a push to reduce or eliminate baby formula, but back then it was an attack on the Big Evil Corporations(TM) producing formula. This sounds like the same idea with a global warming twist. The more things change…
From the article: “Dr Julie Smith, who has studied the economics of infant feeding for over 20 years, says greenhouse gas emissions caused by milk formula production have contributed to global environmental damage.”
Of course, there is no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global environmental damage, so therefore, there is no evidence that milk formula production is causing global environmental damage.
The doctor is blowing smoke. Someone ought to call her on it. Where’s your evidence this claim, Doctor?
She has studied the economics for 20 years: this does not give her any climate science credentials.
The Green’s Killing Fields are no less deadly or real than Pol Pots’ Khmer Rouge Red Killing Fields.
Articles like this one always lead me to wonder.
As with “Ban DiHydrogen MonOxide” would these experts also sign a petition to Ban Plant Life?
For Plants are truly evil,they not only consume the demon gas CO2,but then they have the audacity to outgas that same “pollution” at night.
So as we enter the season of Winter in the Northern Hemisphere the nights are long and the days short..Therefor by “Cult Logic” the bad outweighs the good.
Death to the Trees?
As I have noted before,there is something truly perverse when a Carbon Based Life-form calls their basic constituent poison.
Do you really need to ask?
In Switzerland – In 2008, a judge ruled plants have feelings . . . . I wish I was joking.
At the end of Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six – he indulges his fantasy of leaving a bunch of eco-terrorists deep in the amazon with nothing. Not even the clothes on their backs, so they could “be one with nature”.
The 60s called, they want their “reduce the population or we’re all going to die” variations on a meme back.
Absolutely rhymes with what Eric said,
It is chilling in my opinion that young feminists are telling ‘we’ should not have kids at all. I think it is getting worse than it was in the 60’s.
Send us the money now, or the babies won’t get their formula!
Just as an aside nicholas, supermarkets here in Sydney (Australia) had to put a limit of two tins per person. Chinese individuals were buying up entire stocks to send back to China. I think we have since created a market for them but it was tough on the locals for some time there.
AH! Now I understand why some democ-rat recently called for the culling of babies.Why,it’s enough to warrant illuminating NY skyline in warm pink glow.
Problem solved!…
In the old days women who could not feed their babies saw them die. Or if upper class, hire a wet nurse so someone else’s baby suffered. Population was well under control.
Doctors don’t have anyone’s better interests at heart. They’ll knock you off sooner if you put your trust in them, just look at cancer treatment!
Recently in NZ someone came out with the same rubbish: that supplementation with formulas was not necessary. This was reported in media.
We have a wonderful mother-baby support organisation in NZ called Plunket. It goes so far back in our history that I attended almost 70 years ago. At that time it was entirely a private initiative.
Anyway, someone high up in Plunket responded to the above opinion in a very serious manner saying that it was a very dangerous and ill-informed. No one messes with the official view of Plunket. For once media took appropriate responsibility and reported it all in a subjective manner.
I would say that authors of such serious fake views should be legally libel. I have come to the conclusion that the only effective response to woke views is the word NO! – we don’t accept your views! It is impossible to reason with these people.
Cheers
M
Well said Michael Carter,
I get so fed up with every news item focusing on GHG emissions and peoples carbon footprints .
New Zealand milk has the lowest emissions profile in the world and if it was exported to Ireland which has the next lowest profile it would still have be the lowest after shipping halfway round the world .
Infant formula exports to China are an important export for our dairy industry .
Our stupid government thinks that cows are bad because they emit methane .
I made a submission on the crazy Zero Carbon Bill at a Select Committee hearing and looked the list MPs straight in their eyes and said
“Biogenic methane is not a problem.
All forage eaten by farmed animals has absorbed CO2 from the air and the minor amount of methane that they emit is broken down in a few years into CO2 and water vapour .Not one atom or molecule of carbon is added to the atmosphere,The process is a cycle . ”
They did not want to know and they have since proceeded to pass the Bill.
Graham Anderson
Proud to be a farmer helping feed the world [ including infants }
Graham –
The whole methane mania in NZ is a farce in my opinion. Look at all the wetlands in NZ prior to agricultural development: Northland, Waikato and Hauraki and West Coast peat swamps, Southland, and many I may have missed. How much methane was emitted from these in their natural state? These things can be calculated but no – they are ignored.
If they replace baby formula with cow’s milk, what about all the methane emissions from cow flatulence?
I wonder whether babies can be nourished with almond milk…
Infant formula is not necessarily based on powdered milk.
Fresh cows milk with water added to reduce protein %, and lactose added to compensate , was the standard formula for decades.
It’s become quite clear that the real problem of CO2 emissions is the tragic impact it has on a sub-set of humans.
A substantial fraction of humans apparently loses several points in IQ with every ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2.
Those unfortunates with IQ marginally adequate for their professions become vocationally inept if not outright foolish. Dr Julie Smith clearly suffers from this deficiency.
There doesn’t seem to be any notion of alarm that is too fatuous to blame on atmospheric CO2.
Apparently manufacturing baby formula now causes walruses to throw themselves off cliffs, bush fires to run wild in Australia, and desperation-driven polar bears to leap onto the backs of baby beluga whales.
The most tragic thing is that these people are so traumatized by the drumbeat of CO2 alarm that they have no idea how benighted they are. CO2-induced psycho-inanity.
One shudders to think of the psycho-ecological impact of doubled CO2, when a mere 40% increase has caused such widespread neuro-suppression.
Let us be honest here: For some of these people, the slide down into abject mental retardation was a short trip indeed.
I guess we just have to do every little thing we can to stay within the remaining carbon budget.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/11/08/remainingcarbonbudget/
Dr. Julie Smith is a bit of an anti-formula activist. Perhaps no one has been listening to her lately, so she thought to bring climate change into the game (“Perhaps those lazy, selfish mothers will pay attention now”).
But really, how much co2 emissions can she attribute to formula production? Formula consumption is about 3 million tonnes annually. The main ingredients are cow’s milk whey, vegetable oils and lactose (presumably also from cow’s milk), plus minor ingredients like vitamins and minerals. Assuming that formula contains 75 percent of milk solids and that cow’s milk has 10% solids, formula would account for about 22 million tonnes of whole milk, which is about 3.5 percent of global milk production. If we assume that formula contains 25% vegetable oil, that represents 750,000 tonnes of vegetable oil, or 0.37 percent of global production.
So 3.5 percent of global milk production and 0.37 percent of global vegetable oil production. I can’t estimate CO2 emissions without a lot more fact-digging, but this doesn’t sound like CO2 from infant formula production is going to be a major player in the greenhouse gas sweepstakes.
IOW it’s just the same guilt trip that’s been laid on to mothers for decades now, if they have a bit of difficulty making enough milk for their babies, with a fashionable climate change message to make it sound serious.
We had four kids. My poor spouse, despite a relatively generous mammary development, never seemed to be able to make enough milk to satisfy a hungry baby. The first two, we struggled for a few months and eventually gave up breast feeding and went to all formula, and numbers 3 and 4 got formula from the start. So yes, you could say we’re in favour of formula. Anyone wishing to give their babies breast milk is welcome to do so, but please don’t try to make us feel guilty for using formula. It won’t work.
Did Julie Smith’s mother have any children that lived?
That cow is decidedly worse than Mikey Bloomberg, who forbade women giving their newborns any kind of infant formula when he was Maire of New Yawk. That isn’t the only stupid thing he did, but he is one meddling son of a witch. And Ms. Smith? If she’s that desperate for grants money that she has to make up some stupid excuse to publish baloney, she should start working in a deli. She might learn something. Not sure what, but – well, never mind.
Babies ARE a burden on the planet. Overpopulation, much?
Dr Julie Smith should apply to (her/him/third gender/other) self what is written on this banner :
https://wmbriggs.com/post/28466/
Baby Doomers.
+1
Article:
8-| Apparently people who have studied something for 20 years may be totally overestimating the significance of their own field.
The baby formula is not the thing. Nor the babies themselves, for that matter. If we want to reduce emissions (which I don’t find something that needs to be exaggerated), build nuclear.
How utterly ridiculous.
Without formula milk, how on earth will you fatten up babies ready for eating?
It seems she didn’t read Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal.
Mrs Julie Smith is a ‘useful idiot’.
I’ve said it before: ‘baby formula milk’ is produced by big multinationals such as Nestle. That is a successful capitalist enterprise. It is therefore the enemy and must be attacked to be destroyed. Hence their products will be declared as ‘damaging’ the climate or the environment.
This naive ‘researcher’ does the bidding for the marxist wreckers of our economies.
As far as I’m aware, Soya Bean products are the go to ingredient that enables the protein level of formula to be padded up to the point where it may be claimed to be superior to mothers milk ?
If thats the case, and taking into account the magic of photosynthesis, wouldn’t formula be quite the opposite of what this Dr lady is claiming ?
Maybe she’d be on firmer ground highlighting the dangers of Soy phytoestrogens and their effects on hormonal development, and the possible link between formula use and the plague of nut allergy cases that seem a newish addition to our modern life 🙂
The amazing thing to me is that one can have a 20 year career studying the “economics of infant feeding.”
Pretty snacky stuff when you’re sucking on the public teat yourself.
Listen Jules why don’t you make yourself really useful and pop off to China and tell President Xi and the party apparatchiks their bubs have to stop drinking our formula and get back on the melamine there’s a good little watermelon-
https://au.news.yahoo.com/baby-formula-australia-china-daigou-032543894.html
Long term studies have shown that kids that were breastfed for the maximum amount of time are smarter and more successful later in life than the ones that were not.
Now if you look at all the current trends like no breastfeeding, putting children away from their families (the first three years are very important for the later success in life of a child), forcing them to sit in front of displays in schools (the rich and powerful send their children to Waldorf-like schools and forbid family members to use their services like FB, Whatsapp etc.) it makes you thinking…
If there must be substitute baby milk, it should be made from hemp. Soy is very good for women, but not so good for men.
Interesting that this Australian lady focuses on the CO2 produced by making baby milk, when Australia excavates over 300 million tonnes of coal per year. If she is really concerned about the climate, why doesn’t she go after the coal companies? Possibly because the tax these companies pay indirectly support her University job.
Dr Mike, I am an ‘Australian lady’, my thoughts and actions are nothing like those of Dr Julie whoever. You obviously have little understanding of Australia’s political, social or economic standing. As it happens the majority of universities here are so far left that even if you uttered the word ‘coal’ then as a student you would be expelled and as a member of faculty you would be fired, well at least severely ostracised.
They (those ‘university people’) fired Professor Peter Ridd because, after having studied the Great Barrier Reef for more than three decades he had the audacity to say that it was just as it was meant to be. Turned out he was right.
No, don’t put coal and Dr Julie Smith in the same sentence, I was surprised that she got this much attention. I suspect that she is an extreme feminist who has no understanding of how things really are.
Dr Mike, we don’t have alot of options in regards to power here in Australia.
Hydro is not an option in most parts, we have water restrictions in place already in many places, few plentiful sources.
Australian politicians won’t even talk about nuclear power, even the submarines they have in the pipeline will not be nuclear.
Geothermal energy isn’t an option, no volcanic activity here.
Please don’t take away our coal.
For us the remaining option is wind and solar energy and those of us who know it’s short, inefficient, ecological damaging and CO2 footprint, do not want a bar of it!
Check out the link here, if you haven’t already seen it, click on the embedded link that shows a picture from space of the type of mining needed to source materials for ‘clean energy’.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining-china-social-environmental-costs
If we don’t sell coal to the Chinese they will simply buy it from someone else. They need it for the processing plants and manufacturing industry that build ‘clean energy’! The CO2 that the ‘greens’ are responsible for.
We are already having to close down some manufacturing here in different states, permanently I mean. The state’s that rely heavily on wind and solar energy have been requesting that some of the larger manufacturing companies shut down their power at different times. You cannot stop and start an aluminum smelting factory.
Perhaps those amazing Aussies should send Dr Smith (we’re Doomed) lumps of coal as Christmas gifts
Not to worry
Cote de ivoire and the Democratic republic of the congo will save the planet.
Leo Hickman writes
“which countries have brought the largest delegations. Topping the table this year is Côte d’Ivoire, with a whopping 348 delegates. That makes their delegation more than 50 people larger than the second-placed country, the Democratic Republic of the Congo”
“Climate Crisis: “We have got to reduce the manufacture and use of Milk Formula””
– this is reminiscent of
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&biw=360&bih=518&sxsrf=ACYBGNSrOSoMjiUo9qMmdHoyYiqUI0RroQ%3A1575343410939&ei=MtXlXYTwONCckwXbpZ-4Bg&q=is+eating+placenta+cannibalism&oq=is+eating+placenta+cannibalism&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.