What is Digg?170 Comments
- KrayzieKyd, on 11/11/2007, -6/+43Powdered milk making people dumb? Are they snorting it?
- Chompy, on 11/07/2007, -5/+41Correlation does not equal causation. Just off the top of my head: those who go through the "trouble" to breastfeed may also be more dedicated as mothers, statistically speaking, then those who take the easier route of formula. It's called critical thinking, and it's the most important skill anyone can learn. The explanation that backs up your preconceived notions and/or was handed to you by the article summary is not always the correct one.
- krazz, on 11/11/2007, -2/+35Nestle was once owned by Bob Smith, who in turn sold it to Fred Thompson, who then lent money to Richard Mans, who lived next door to Leslie Happensdad, who was the stepdaughter of Chris Youngblood, who was a childhood friend of.........guess who........Dick Cheney.......coincidence? I think not.
- Kardde, on 11/06/2007, -1/+31Evolution would like to have a talk with you.
- Hipple, on 11/06/2007, -1/+26That's a lot of question marks. Too many, maybe...
- wagthesam, on 11/07/2007, -1/+22actually a mother's milk is tailored for a child, powdered milk is generally accepted by the scientific community only recommended when a mother can't physically breastfeed. Yes, the quality of nutrition in the first 2 years of your life does make a difference.
- Roblodocus, on 11/06/2007, -0/+15How many questionmarks do you need to get your point across??????
- tim04, on 11/06/2007, -2/+15I'm sorry, but gender roles are programmed into nature for a reason. Female equality can only go so far as men clearly cant breast feed. There is also no reason that a child's future should ever be compromised as a result of some kind of "feminist" view, as 99.999...% of mothers would attest to.
In terms of the actual fact of breast feeding and IQ, I think it's perfectly reasonable that the milk which is intended specifically for the baby in the first place is also more healthy for that baby. - CH3CH2OH, on 11/06/2007, -4/+17Thank you for reminding me that these policies are "(evil)." I always thought being "anti-black, anti-third world, and anti-middle class" was a good thing.
- ChromaVita, on 11/06/2007, -2/+14It's that ***** rabbit! If this turns out to be true I would think twice before buying Trix cereal or Cadbury creme eggs.
- inactive, on 11/06/2007, -4/+15Thank you for reminding me why no one needs to take you seriously.
- Terr01, on 11/06/2007, -0/+10I thought the main pro-breastmilk argument had to do with nutrient balance and antibody trasmission and things like that. I'm all for gender equality, but there are certain baseline biological things which we can't change in the near term. I mean, that's sort of like going after caesarian sections for "holding us back from artificial wombs" or something.
- ZenMojo, on 11/06/2007, -0/+10If you tell the mother that powdered milk has more nutrients than breast milk or if the mother is already undernourished and can't produce enough breastmilk....
- sybarite, on 11/06/2007, -0/+9You're assuming the white folks at Nestlé were smart enough to think this scheme up deliberately.
Me, I favour greed and incompetence over a conspiracy theory any day. - Barf87, on 11/06/2007, -2/+10You need a reality check if you think this is some sort of conspiracy.
Buried. - scottfarner, on 11/06/2007, -1/+8Do you know what has a bigger effect on IQ? Malnutrition.
While breast is best, the product in question is marketed as a (relatively) low cost alternative to breast milk when the mother can/does not breast feed her child. - inactive, on 11/06/2007, -0/+7Boobs are awesome.
- AXNJAXN, on 11/07/2007, -3/+10Starving women can't breastfeed in the same way that nourished women can. Given the choice between starving to death and drinking powdered milk, it's really no choice at all.
- RobotBuddha, on 11/06/2007, -0/+7Sad. This is one of the few times I've actually seen a relatively high quality article on medical research linked to on digg, at least as far as popscience goes. And the comments are making it clear how many posters here never actually read the article. Which, it turns out, has absolutely nothing to do with the inflammatory headline.
- fonebone2, on 11/06/2007, -2/+8How many starving women can afford powdered milk?
- barc0001, on 11/06/2007, -0/+6Oh get real. Unless you can back up these statements with something a little stronger than "convincing advertising", I'm going to have to go with it's they who buy's fault. If there were doctors on the payroll of Nestle at the free clinics telling the people they need to use this stuff or their kids will die, that's a whole different kettle of fish, but if we're just talking about a successful ad campaign, then Nestle's not at fault here.
- SiNN4R, on 11/06/2007, -0/+6SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!
- zerhynn, on 11/06/2007, -2/+8The fifth of november was yesterday, V.
- inactive, on 11/06/2007, -1/+7Guys...has someone changed the link? Because I've read the article carefully a few times now and cannot for the life of me see how Hopkirk gets from "Scientists discover breast-milk provides hormones essential to the development of human intelligence" to "ZOMG! Nestle are keeping people stupid in the Third World!?!?!?". Is it just me? Am I missing something obvious? Can anyone see the word 'Nestle' at all? Or even a reference to the Third World?
Dugg down for the sensationalist and, as much as I hate to agree with anyone who uses the awful term 'tinfoil hatter', totally absurb title. - Andareed, on 11/06/2007, -0/+6I assume that the more a mother breastfeeds, the more she needs to eat to replenish her milk. So you can hardly say that the cost of breast milk is free. I'm pretty sure there's other reasons why a mother might choose not to breastfeed.
- Shelleroo, on 11/06/2007, -2/+8Nestle used to actively promote infant formula over breastfeeding in developing countries through uniformed sales agents, aka “milk nurses”, who were using their positions of power to recommend and distribute infant formula to nursing mothers in hospitals. These nurses were paid to use their scientific and medical "knowledge" to manipulate these consumers into thinking that powder milk is better for their babies.
This was a very effective way to increase revenue because stopping natural breastfeeding was equivalent to getting women hooked on the products.
The only thing was that Nestle didn't take into account the whole ethical aspect of it. Contrary to what Nestle was endorsing, infant formula is not comparable to breast milk, unable to provide the immunity to a wide variety of diseases and lacking necessary antibodies. In addition, using infant formula was especially dangerous in developing countries because of the lack of clean water and the inability for women to afford the formula, leading to the constant dilution of the product and the subsequent malnourishment and death of thousands of infants.
This question has already come up 40 years ago... and yes, Nestle was hurting babies in developing countries on purpose, for their profit margins. - fonebone2, on 11/06/2007, -3/+9You know what else is *****? Pregnancy. For nine months women have to give up drugs and alcohol while men can still go buckwild? ***** that! Women should be allowed to do whatever they please.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 11/06/2007, -1/+6I just heard Giselle Bundchen now wants to be paid in powdered milk.......
- inactive, on 11/06/2007, -0/+5I thought this was going to be an article about Nestle Quick. Boy am I disappointed.
- fonebone2, on 11/06/2007, -0/+5linky no worky
- xdcc, on 11/06/2007, -0/+5Third world countries are not the only places being dumbed down.
- SiNN4R, on 11/06/2007, -0/+4Not in California.
- lucidguru, on 11/06/2007, -1/+5So let me get this straight... The mother can A. buy food for herself to eat and provide breast milk for her child, or B. buy less food and be malnourished while also buying powdered milk for the child... how is A not the better option?
- mstoneburner, on 11/06/2007, -0/+4Breast feeding isn't a societally proscribed gender role, it's a biologically proscribed gender role...
- chan0429, on 11/06/2007, -1/+5I don't know guys, I'm told I was breastfed till I was 2 and all I got was a healthy appreciation for... breasts. But trivial matters besides. I didn't get to read the article but as a recent dad I can bet the article is about DHA and ARA fortification. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docosahexaenoic_acid# ... Also it seems like Nestle has been in trouble here in the US for misstating nutrition info on their product labels http://www.parentdish.com/2006/12/13/fda-sends-war ... Nestle yet another company to boycott.
- HappyScrappy, on 11/06/2007, -2/+6Wow. Way to turn a mediocre news story right into a tinfoil hat conspiracy.
- inactive, on 11/06/2007, -0/+4You *****. The only conspiracy here is that people like to make money. They did exactly the same thing in western nations before they made laws against advertising formula.
- behn1220, on 11/07/2007, -1/+5You must have been fed formula as a baby...
- lucidguru, on 11/06/2007, -1/+4Where does she get the money to buy the powdered milk then? Why doesn't she use this to buy food?
- redwolf, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3Nestle's powdered milk has killed a hell of a lot of children in third world countries. Not because of the product itself, but because there is no safe water supply in many areas. They troop in and heavily market the product as healthier for children and forget about the issue of water that is necessary to make up their product.
- natdowner, on 11/06/2007, -1/+4wtf... Am I the only one who didn't find ANY reference to Nestle in this article? Why is everyone going on about Nestle's powdered milk when this article is just about breastfed babies having higher IQ's? Sensationalized much?
- pdxchris, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3I work a grocery store in Oregon and our state government gives certificates to 30%+ of mothers in our state for cans of powered baby formula. On the certificate it states that only a specific brand can be bought. First of all, why is the government paying 60-$200 a month to 30% of infants for something that is lowering their IQ when the alternative is free and works for most children? Secondly, someone needs to call BS on the fact that this one brand is the only one that they can purchase with the certificates. There has to be some huge ass bribes involved! I am sick of this facist-socialist state we live in! (Fascism: "an authoritarian political ideology that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state.")
- roodammy44, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3And while we're at it we might as well start eating plastic.
Food? Why would we need something as natural as that, we've evolved beyond food. - Buckro, on 11/07/2007, -1/+4your ability to do math, especially if you have never been taught math, has nothing to do with your intelligence.
- JKAL, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3Yes, totally agree, just because some pro breastfeeding people jumped on the band wagon, does mean Powered milk is bad or good, but how & where it is deployed, so deploying "powdered" milk to any place where "clean" water is not readily available, is of very serious concern on it's purpose.
Think about it before blabbing away! people. - inactive, on 11/07/2007, -2/+5You all should start a facebook club: "We sucked our mommies ***** and we are better for it!"
- Lionhart, on 11/06/2007, -2/+5Tinfoil hat.
- mstoneburner, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3Women BETTER NOT evolve beyond the need for breasts.
- Kardde, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3Bound by biology? What in the blue hell are you talking about? Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with evolution or biology. It has everything to do with anthropology, society, and the progression of civilization. As soon as female mammals evolve beyond the need for breasts, I'll tip my hat to you. Until then, you're wrong.
- blitzer, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3More than 5.. because he still has no point...
? -
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is