Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Lipfinity or Outlast

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Xtal

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 9:10:44 AM9/15/02
to
If you have tried both of these long wearing lipsticks can you tell me which
one you find better and why?

Thanks,

Chris


Tungsten35

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 9:39:35 AM9/15/02
to
They're truly the same product, just under a different label. But the parent
company is the same. The only difference is in color selections.

Heather (a Lipfinity/Outlast lover)

~Nail polish, more addictive than any illegal substance known to mankind~

Stevie

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 2:14:12 PM9/15/02
to
Lipfinity has more warm colors and CG Outlast has more colors imho
Stevie

Sophie

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 3:06:06 PM9/15/02
to
>They're truly the same product, just under a different label. But the
parent
>company is the same. The only difference is in color selections.
>Heather (a Lipfinity/Outlast lover)


Is there a difference in price?

Do you happen to know if Maybelline and Cover Girl are owned by the same
people? Both companies have an identical product (I think) - Maybelline
Cool Effects Shadow/liner and Cover Girl Eye Slicks Gel Eyecolor. The only
difference I could see was the price (Maybelline was cheaper).


--
Sophie
See us at http://www.mcgehees.com
"No one should pass an American in uniform without saying "Thank you, we are
grateful."
Always mindful that they are prepared to risk all their dreams so that all
of us can reach ours."
- former Secretary of Defense, William Cohen


Xtal

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 4:06:26 PM9/15/02
to
I know that Cover Girl is owned by Proctor and Gamble, I am not sure about
Max Factor.
"Sophie" <fakea...@home.com> wrote in message
news:uo9m0s6...@corp.supernews.com...

Roseann

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 5:24:10 PM9/15/02
to

"Sophie" <fakea...@home.com> wrote in message
news:uo9m0s6...@corp.supernews.com...
> >They're truly the same product, just under a different label. But the
> parent
> >company is the same. The only difference is in color selections.
> >Heather (a Lipfinity/Outlast lover)
>
>
> Is there a difference in price?
>

Yes. The Lipfinity is usually 2 dollars more.

> Do you happen to know if Maybelline and Cover Girl are owned by the same
> people? Both companies have an identical product (I think) - Maybelline
> Cool Effects Shadow/liner and Cover Girl Eye Slicks Gel Eyecolor. The
only
> difference I could see was the price (Maybelline was cheaper).

Maybelline, Loreal and Lancome are all owned by the same company. CoverGirl
and Max Factor are owned by the same company.


--
Roseann
Happiness is a butterfly which, when pursued, is always
beyond our grasp, but which if you sit down quietly, may alight
upon you. - Nathaniel Hawthorne


Andie

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 10:00:44 PM9/15/02
to
"Xtal" <xta...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<pF%g9.149$w72....@news20.bellglobal.com>...

I've landed with Lipfinity. I waited a long time to try it, as I'd
heard good and bad, but I did and it has made my "lipstick life" so
much easier. I had become so frustrated with regular lipstick, as I
really need lip color or I looked washed out, so I was constantly
re-applying. With Lipfinity, I put it on in the morning before work
and it lasts until bedtime. I most always wear #185, Sultry. It's
important to apply the topcoat periodically throughout the day, as
your lips can feel dry, but I love the stuff!

Andie

Sophie

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 7:31:54 AM9/16/02
to
Xtal said: >I know that Cover Girl is owned by Proctor and Gamble, I am not
sure about
>Max Factor.

Oh good to know about P&G as I *try* to boycott their stuff. (They fired a
soap opera actor for having ALS.)

Sophie

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 7:33:56 AM9/16/02
to
>Yes. The Lipfinity is usually 2 dollars more.

Wow. And if you go to a drugstore (like CVS, Eckerds) you'll be paying $2
more on top of that.

>Maybelline, Loreal and Lancome are all owned by the same company. CoverGirl
>and Max Factor are owned by the same company.
>--
>Roseann

I knew L'Oreal and Lancome were owned by the same people. A friend of mine
lived in Paris for yrs and bought Lancome cos it was cheaper. Here in the
States she buys L'Oreal and swears they're the same.

Is Max Factor stuff any good? Never tried it.

Roseann

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 8:07:09 AM9/16/02
to

"Sophie" <fakea...@home.com> wrote in message
news:uobft0e...@corp.supernews.com...

> >Yes. The Lipfinity is usually 2 dollars more.
>
> Wow. And if you go to a drugstore (like CVS, Eckerds) you'll be paying $2
> more on top of that.

Yeah, no kidding. They also have about half the selection of colors.

>
> >Maybelline, Loreal and Lancome are all owned by the same company.
CoverGirl
> >and Max Factor are owned by the same company.
> >--
> >Roseann
>
> I knew L'Oreal and Lancome were owned by the same people. A friend of
mine
> lived in Paris for yrs and bought Lancome cos it was cheaper. Here in the
> States she buys L'Oreal and swears they're the same.
>
> Is Max Factor stuff any good? Never tried it.

\

Never tried Max Factor, myself. But since reading about the Nestle boycott,
I am now not buying Loreal, Maybelline or Lancome since Nestle is their
parent company.
I know, it's like the lesser of 2 evils when it comes to the big corporate
conglomerate, but the Nestle thing bothers me more than the P&G thing.

(for those that want to know about the Nestle boycott, extremely OT, but
check out babymilkaction.org . It's about infant feeding practices around
the world.

Sophie

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 1:29:15 PM9/16/02
to
Roseann said: >I am now not buying Loreal, Maybelline or Lancome since

Nestle is their
>parent company.

Wow, I didn't know Nestle owned all that. It's actually really hard to
totally boycott a company. Bayer is another one worth boycotting too (for
what they did during WW2).

Open my pantry and it looks like I work for Nestle. Lol.

For curiosity's sake, I'll check out that webpage.

Message has been deleted

Charles L. Perrin

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 3:48:00 PM9/16/02
to
On 16 Sep 2002 18:05:02 GMT, kath...@aol.com (Kathy135) wrote:

>>From: "Roseann" NoS...@home.com

>>I am now not buying Loreal, Maybelline or Lancome since Nestle is their
>>parent company.

>May I ask why you are boycotting Nestle?
>I happen to know the heiress to the Nestle fortune and her husband.
>What do you feel they are doing wrong?

Marketing of baby formula in Third World countries where it's
difficult to use the product safely.

--
Visit Charlie's Sneaker Pages:
http://sneakers.pair.com/

Roseann

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 6:13:54 PM9/16/02
to

"Charles L. Perrin" <c.l.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:b4dcou4vu6ieuo5hg...@4ax.com...

> On 16 Sep 2002 18:05:02 GMT, kath...@aol.com (Kathy135) wrote:
>
> >>From: "Roseann" NoS...@home.com
>
> >>I am now not buying Loreal, Maybelline or Lancome since Nestle is their
> >>parent company.
>
> >May I ask why you are boycotting Nestle?
> >I happen to know the heiress to the Nestle fortune and her husband.
> >What do you feel they are doing wrong?
>
> Marketing of baby formula in Third World countries where it's
> difficult to use the product safely.
>
Exactly. Very crude business practices, especially when thousands of infants
die each year from it.
Message has been deleted

Roseann

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 6:48:03 PM9/16/02
to

"Kathy135" <kath...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020916183258...@mb-md.aol.com...
> >From: "Roseann" NoS...@home.com

>
> >> Marketing of baby formula in Third World countries where it's
> >> difficult to use the product safely.
> >>
> >Exactly. Very crude business practices, especially when thousands of
infants
> >die each year from it.
>
> Okay, color me clueless about this, but how is it difficult to use the
product
> safely and why would they be dying? What are the crude business
practices?
> Kathy
>

Here is a site with more info on the boycott
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/boycott.html

http://danny.oz.au/BFAG/


(taken from the site listed above)

Nestlé and Wyeth, two of the World's largest producers of powdered baby
milk, are currently breaking a World Health Organisation Code on the
marketing of breast milk substitutes.
Nestlé and Wyeth provide free milk to maternity hospitals in the Third World
so that newborn babies are routinely bottle-fed.
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.
When the mother and baby leave hospital, the milk is no longer free. At home
parents are forced to buy more milk, which can cost 50% of the family
income.
Because the milk is so expensive the child is not fed enough. This leads to
malnutrition.
The water mixed with the formula is often contaminated. This leads to
diarhhoea, malnutrition and often death. James Grant, Executive Officer of
UNICEF, has said:
Every day some 3,000 to 4,000 infants die because they are denied access to
adequate breast milk.
1.5 million babies die every year from unsafe bottle feeding.
Breast feeding is free and safe and protects against infection - but
companies know that unless they get babies on the bottle, they don't do
business.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 6:47:32 PM9/16/02
to
>>Exactly. Very crude business practices, especially when thousands of infants
>>die each year from it.

Perhaps they should be marketing birth control instead.

***
Geri

"Got an issue? Here's a tissue."
Nigel Powers

Message has been deleted

Dana Carpender

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 7:47:18 PM9/16/02
to

Kathy135 wrote:


>
> >From: "Roseann" NoS...@home.com
>
> >> Marketing of baby formula in Third World countries where it's
> >> difficult to use the product safely.
> >>
> >Exactly. Very crude business practices, especially when thousands of infants
> >die each year from it.
>

> Okay, color me clueless about this, but how is it difficult to use the product


> safely and why would they be dying? What are the crude business practices?
>

Last I knew, it worked like this: White coated company reps, looking
like medical personnel, go to hospitals in third world countries, and
tell the new mothers that formula is this wonderful, modern way to feed
your baby, implying that only yokels breastfeed. They give the mother
some samples. The mother feeds the baby the samples, and in the
meanwhile her breastmilk dries up. She then has to *buy* formula to
feed her baby -- formula she cannot afford. Often women will mix the
formula half-strength, to make it go further, and baby slowly starves.

Add to this picture the fact that a whole lot of these women have no
access to safe, clean water -- and therefore are mixing the formula with
water that gives their babies dysentary -- the most common killer of
infants, worldwide. No really good way to sterilize bottles, either,
and certainly no disposable bottle liners, like we have here.

It really is a very ugly marketing practice. Makes me glad I've been
mostly buying Revlon recently.

--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!

Dana Carpender

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 7:50:17 PM9/16/02
to

Geri and sometimes Brian wrote:
>
> >>Exactly. Very crude business practices, especially when thousands of infants
> >>die each year from it.
>
> Perhaps they should be marketing birth control instead.
>

Birth control isn't what's needed to lower the birth rate, oddly
enough. Education of women is the most powerful factor -- inevitably,
the more schooling a country's women have, the more likely they are to
control reproduction, because they see other possibilities in their
lives. Also needed is some sense of economic security in old age. At
this point, most people in third world countries are *better off*
economically if they have a lot of children, because kids start working
young -- and because it means at least a few will survive to support
them when they're old.

Without changing these things, all the birth control in the world ain't
gonna make a dent.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 8:06:22 PM9/16/02
to
>Last I knew, it worked like this: White coated company reps, looking
>like medical personnel, go to hospitals in third world countries, and
>tell the new mothers that formula is this wonderful, modern way to feed
>your baby, implying that only yokels breastfeed. They give the mother
>some samples.

I can't say how it works in the third world, but in hospitals here the formula
reps have no contact with the patients at all.


>
> No really good way to sterilize bottles, either,

Presumably they have fire and can boil the water.

>It really is a very ugly marketing practice.

Free enterprise.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Dana Carpender

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 8:21:41 PM9/16/02
to

Kathy135 wrote:
>
> >From: Dana Carpender dcar...@kiva.net
>
> >Education of women
>
> Education of people, period, in third world countries. Kind of seems that
> Nestle is trying to help do that, while getting slapped for trying to help.

Don't mean to quarrel, but just exactly how are they trying to educate
people to do anything but use their unnecessary product?

JennP

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 8:32:41 PM9/16/02
to

"Kathy135" <kath...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020916183258...@mb-md.aol.com...
> Okay, color me clueless about this, but how is it difficult to use the
product

> safely and why would they be dying? What are the crude business
practices?
> Kathy

They give out a certain amount of free formula for the babies. Then they
purchase it, but the parents cannot afford it so they start watering down
the formula which is extremely dangerous. Also, they often use water which
is contaminated. All very preventable if the mothers were not swayed by
slick marketing tactics and just use the milk their bodies make naturally.

Their marketing strategies in the US also are in direct violation of the
WHO's code.

JennP.


Message has been deleted

Dana Carpender

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 8:46:12 PM9/16/02
to

Kathy135 wrote:


>
> >From: "JennP" jennifer...@attbi.com
>
> >They give out a certain amount of free formula for the babies. Then they
> >purchase it, but the parents cannot afford it so they start watering down
> >the formula which is extremely dangerous. Also, they often use water which
> >is contaminated. All very preventable if the mothers were not swayed by
> >slick marketing tactics and just use the milk their bodies make naturally.
>

> Well, like I said in another post, the people would be using contaminated water
> already, so that is a matter of education. Also sounds like they are
> intervening with mothers who cannot produce breast milk, so some milk is better
> than no milk.

I've heard and seen no evidence that these women cannot produce breast
milk, and they have a lifetime of resistance built up to the organisms
in the water.

>
> >
> >Their marketing strategies in the US also are in direct violation of the
> >WHO's code.
>

> You'll have to tell me what they are exactly, as I don't know.
>

The World Health Organization.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 8:43:00 PM9/16/02
to
>Their marketing strategies in the US also are in direct violation of the
>WHO's code.

Who does this code have jurisdiction over?

Message has been deleted

JennP

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 9:08:37 PM9/16/02
to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message > I

can't say how it works in the third world, but in hospitals here the formula
> reps have no contact with the patients at all.

No, they don't, but they have a tremendous amount of influence on the
hospital staff.

JennP.


JennP

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 9:29:18 PM9/16/02
to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20020916204300...@mb-fh.aol.com...

> >Their marketing strategies in the US also are in direct violation of the
> >WHO's code.
>
> Who does this code have jurisdiction over?

Supposedly, the codes are created for the formula manufactuers, marketing
companies, hospitals, doctors, etc. Right now, AFAIK, there are no
reprecussions for not following these codes.

JennP.


JennP

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 9:29:17 PM9/16/02
to

"Kathy135" <kath...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020916203623...@mb-dh.aol.com...

> You'll have to tell me what they are exactly, as I don't know.
> Kathy
http://www.who.int/nut/documents/code_english.PDF

The site brings you to a .PDF file found on the who's web site. Skim down to
articles #4-#11 to get to the nitty gritty. HTH.

JennP.


JennP

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 9:38:16 PM9/16/02
to

"Kathy135" <kath...@aol.com> wrote in message

JennP

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 9:38:19 PM9/16/02
to

"Kathy135" <kath...@aol.com> wrote in message

JennP

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 9:56:31 PM9/16/02
to

"JennP" <jennifer...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:srvh9.443254$me6.53781@sccrnsc01... three times!

Sorry for the multiple posts. I sent it once and my server kept sending it.
I've had trouble getting messages out today.

JennP.


Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 9:57:54 PM9/16/02
to
>No, they don't, but they have a tremendous amount of influence on the
>hospital staff.

I am newborn nursery hospital staff and they don't have any special influence
on me. We go along with what the parents want - we don't promote anything but
what the parents want to do.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 9:58:57 PM9/16/02
to
>Supposedly, the codes are created for the formula manufactuers, marketing
>companies, hospitals, doctors, etc. Right now, AFAIK, there are no
>reprecussions for not following these codes.

I guess that was my question, in a nutshell. The formula companies are not
breaking any laws, then.

Czarina Colette

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 10:04:41 PM9/16/02
to
In article <20020916215754...@mb-mh.aol.com>,

gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) wrote:

> >No, they don't, but they have a tremendous amount of influence on the
> >hospital staff.
>
> I am newborn nursery hospital staff and they don't have any special influence
> on me. We go along with what the parents want - we don't promote anything but
> what the parents want to do.

It hasn't always been that way and not all hospitals are the
same. Certainly the situation has improved domestically since
the boycott first began. It used to be that formula companies
would provide incentives to hospital staff. There was quite an
outcry and many hospitals made a loud show of saying they weren't
going to allow it to happen anymore. I'm sure many other
hospitals quietly followed suit. In addition, it used to be that
the breastfeeding literature handed out at hospitals was in fact
written and published by formula companies. I can't vouch for
whether this has changed or not as I've not kept up with that
part of it.

--
"And never once, on any midnight whatsoever, will you take off from
here without a pang." -- Nelson Algren _Chicago:_City_on_the_Make_
Are you smrat enough to rot-13 spammer?

Czarina Colette

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 10:13:05 PM9/16/02
to
In article <20020916215857...@mb-mh.aol.com>,

gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian) wrote:

> >Supposedly, the codes are created for the formula manufactuers, marketing
> >companies, hospitals, doctors, etc. Right now, AFAIK, there are no
> >reprecussions for not following these codes.
>
> I guess that was my question, in a nutshell. The formula companies are not
> breaking any laws, then.

Not all things that are legal are right.

And, depending on whom you talk to, you might get some
disagreement that the formula companies aren't doing anything
illegal. There is economic and political shadiness going on here.

There's a book out there called something like "Milk, Money and
Madness" IIRC that details a lot of this stuff. I can't
personally vouch for the book because I haven't read it myself,
but it was recommended to me by my Ex's mother, who is (was?) one
of the people in charge of coordinating the US boycott, and who
has testified in front of Congress on the issue.

Dana Carpender

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 10:17:08 PM9/16/02
to

Well, except that a lot of people will think you're rotten, and refuse
to do business with you.

JennP

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 10:29:26 PM9/16/02
to

"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
news:20020916215754...@mb-mh.aol.com...

> >No, they don't, but they have a tremendous amount of influence on the
> >hospital staff.
>
> I am newborn nursery hospital staff and they don't have any special
influence
> on me. We go along with what the parents want - we don't promote anything
but
> what the parents want to do.

Of course you wouldn't go against the parents wishes. I certainly didn't
mean to imply that. What I really meant, and didn't explain well (sorry) is
that people up the line at the hospitals do recieve lots of pressure from
aggressive reps to carry their products. Of course, understandably formula
manufactuers are a business and business are out there to make money.

I know some hospitals around here, don't push the formula in the hospitals
but the moms are discharged with a diaper bag filled with formula samples
even if they indicated they are breastfeeding. It seems a little
counterproductive to a new mom with goals of breastfeeding.

JennP.


Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 10:39:11 PM9/16/02
to
>Not all things that are legal are right.
>
True, but what is "right" is highly subjective. Not everyone defines it the
same way.

Dana Carpender

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 10:44:56 PM9/16/02
to


When my nephew, now four, was born, my sister in law was told that she
just *had* to give him a bottle in the first 24 hours, so that when she
wanted to stop breastfeeding, Henry would accept the bottle. I was
horrified at the assumption that of *course* she'd want to stop
breastfeeding.

JennP

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 10:40:21 PM9/16/02
to

"Czarina Colette" <p...@abegujrfgrea.rqh> wrote in message
news:pqz-0F620C.2...@ord-read.news.verio.net...

> There's a book out there called something like "Milk, Money and
> Madness" IIRC that details a lot of this stuff. I can't
> personally vouch for the book because I haven't read it myself,
> but it was recommended to me by my Ex's mother, who is (was?) one
> of the people in charge of coordinating the US boycott, and who
> has testified in front of Congress on the issue.

Interesting. There is a boycott discussion going on right now in
misc.kids.breastfeeding. What is her profession that she became involved in
the boycott (if it has anything to do with it)?

I read parts of that book a while ago. What I read was pretty interesting.
Worth reading if you're interested in the topic.

JennP.


Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 10:43:20 PM9/16/02
to
>Well, except that a lot of people will think you're rotten, and refuse
>to do business with you.

How much profit has the boycott cost Nestle, et al?

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 10:42:27 PM9/16/02
to
>It used to be that formula companies
>would provide incentives to hospital staff.

For us, we got a breakfast, I think. They do provide incentives to *units*,
but that just means we use their brand of formula. We always will offer
formula, because that is what some parents want.

>In addition, it used to be that
>the breastfeeding literature handed out at hospitals was in fact
>written and published by formula companies.

I think we have some of this. But we do not have pressue to promote formula
feeding over breast feeding. My hospital is not as state of the art as a lot
of them, either, even as large as it is.

Dana Carpender

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 10:50:45 PM9/16/02
to

Geri and sometimes Brian wrote:
>
> >Well, except that a lot of people will think you're rotten, and refuse
> >to do business with you.
>
> How much profit has the boycott cost Nestle, et al?
>

How can anyone possibly know?

Tracy Cramer

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:17:34 PM9/16/02
to
On 17 Sep 2002 00:12:26 GMT, kath...@aol.com (Kathy135) wrote:

>>From: Dana Carpender dcar...@kiva.net
>
>>Education of women
>
>Education of people, period, in third world countries. Kind of seems that
>Nestle is trying to help do that, while getting slapped for trying to help.

>If people are starving, they wouldn't be producing breast milk anyway.

A woman has to be *severely* malnourished not to produce breast milk. Her body
will continue to provide nourishment for her child even at the expense of her
own health. Nature is all about propagating the species, so once a baby arrives,
the goal is to keep the baby alive -- the mother has done her job by
reproducing.


Tracy

Czarina Colette

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:16:17 PM9/16/02
to
In article <pCwh9.1157$L12.1264@sccrnsc02>,
"JennP" <jennifer...@attbi.com> wrote:

> "Czarina Colette" <p...@abegujrfgrea.rqh> wrote in message
> news:pqz-0F620C.2...@ord-read.news.verio.net...
> > There's a book out there called something like "Milk, Money and
> > Madness" IIRC that details a lot of this stuff. I can't
> > personally vouch for the book because I haven't read it myself,
> > but it was recommended to me by my Ex's mother, who is (was?) one
> > of the people in charge of coordinating the US boycott, and who
> > has testified in front of Congress on the issue.
>
> Interesting. There is a boycott discussion going on right now in
> misc.kids.breastfeeding. What is her profession that she became involved in
> the boycott (if it has anything to do with it)?

She started out as a social worker, I think. She got very
involved in child advocacy at the state level in Michigan, and
then moved on to the national level. Last I knew she was
teaching social work classes at uhhh... Georgetown, maybe... I
don't remember exactly. She was also doing work for national
child advocacy groups, including the Benton Foundation's "Kids
Campaign," whicn I guess is now known as "Connect for Kids." Her
son and I broke up some time ago and he's since gotten married to
someone else, though, so it's been awhile! :-)

Czarina Colette

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:17:10 PM9/16/02
to
In article <va5dougi0ujvo5t2o...@4ax.com>,
David RL Gartner <sticknee...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 02:13:05 GMT, Czarina Colette
> <p...@abegujrfgrea.rqh> wrote:
>
> >Are you smrat enough to rot-13 spammer?
>

> smrat?

Yeah smrat. What are you an idot? ;-)

Dana Carpender

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:22:54 PM9/16/02
to

Czarina Colette wrote:
>
> In article <va5dougi0ujvo5t2o...@4ax.com>,
> David RL Gartner <sticknee...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 02:13:05 GMT, Czarina Colette
> > <p...@abegujrfgrea.rqh> wrote:
> >
> > >Are you smrat enough to rot-13 spammer?
> >
> > smrat?
>
> Yeah smrat. What are you an idot? ;-)
>
>

Oh, let's not talk about IDOT. I lived in Illinois, those guys at the
Department of Transportation are real idiots. ;-p

Trilby

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:31:47 PM9/16/02
to
In article <20020916224320...@mb-mp.aol.com>,

Geri and sometimes Brian <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote:
>>Well, except that a lot of people will think you're rotten, and refuse
>>to do business with you.
>
>How much profit has the boycott cost Nestle, et al?
>
>***
>Geri

They haven't gotten any of my money since 1978. That's a lot of candy
bars.

Priscilla

p.s. If you think people argue with you about nursing your children, try
using cloth diapers. ;)


--
ps...@midway.uchicago.edu "Here comes the most beautiful woman in puppetland!"

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:47:35 PM9/16/02
to
>I know some hospitals around here, don't push the formula in the hospitals
>but the moms are discharged with a diaper bag filled with formula samples
>even if they indicated they are breastfeeding. It seems a little
>counterproductive to a new mom with goals of breastfeeding.

We give them a bag with a can of the instant formula. They can use it or throw
it out as they wish. The real ardent breast(NO BOTTLES!)feeders wouldn't
probably use it anyway. But, they might complain if we didn't give them the
cute little bag that their bottlefeeding roommates were getting.

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:50:07 PM9/16/02
to
>If you think people argue with you about nursing your children, try
>using cloth diapers. ;)

Cloth diapers are cool! I wish we used them at the hospital. They are lots
more environmentally friendly.

>They haven't gotten any of my money since 1978. That's a lot of candy

I am sure my chocoholic husband eats your share and more! :-)

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:51:37 PM9/16/02
to
>> How much profit has the boycott cost Nestle, et al?
>>
>How can anyone possibly know?

How can you know if the boycott is working then, though?

Tracy Cramer

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:59:21 PM9/16/02
to
On 17 Sep 2002 00:06:22 GMT, gple...@aol.commotion (Geri and sometimes Brian)
wrote:

>I can't say how it works in the third world, but in hospitals here the formula
>reps have no contact with the patients at all.

Even though the formula company reps have no direct contact with patients, they
can have a tremendous influence on them. A lot of people will take any type of
promotional material from a formula company (posters, pamphlets, pens, notepads)
found in a doctor's office or hospital as that facility's endorsement of the
product, even if the doctor or hospital encourage breastfeeding.

Formula companies have a lot to gain if they can hook their "clients" early.
Only about $.16 of every dollar a consumer spends on formula actually goes
toward production/delivery/marketing costs, so the profit margin is pretty high.
If you figure that for every $10 spent on formula, $8.40 is profit; you're
looking at handing over at least $840 to the formula company during your baby's
first year -- and that's provided you don't have to use one of the
hypoallergenic formulas that run about $23 for one can of powdered formula.

Most women who receive a "starter pack" of formula in the hospital will try that
first and then stick with that formula if the baby has no problems. If a formula
company can get a large hospital to sign an exclusive contract to distribute
only their formula (usually in exchange for a monetary donation to the
hospital), they've roped in a whole bunch of new clients since only about 60% of
new mothers breastfeed in the hospital. By 6 months, only 25% of babies are
still breastfed, so those babies must have formula since they are to have either
breastmilk or formula for the first year. Only about 14% of infants are
breastfed to one year, so it's fair to say that most babies will have some
formula during their first year.

Formula companies also have some dubious marketing practices. Both Ross and Mead
Johnson have "parent clubs" in which you can enroll for free (and some
retailers, such as Motherhood Maternity, will enroll you without your consent).
During your pregnancy, you'll get little chatty mailings with information about
pregnancy and the push for the company's product. That's not so bad, right?

Well, right around when your new baby is 2 weeks old, you'll usually get a
delivery of free formula. I got 2 cans of powdered formula during my last
"pregnancy" (I was actually researching formula companies marketing tactics).
Moms who've breastfed know that 2 weeks is right about the time when a baby will
have its first growth spurt, wanting to nurse around the clock and making you
wonder if you have enough milk. Women who aren't as educated about breastfeeding
assume that they don't have enough milk (not understanding the supply and demand
concept of breastfeeding) so they reach for that free formula. What a lifesaver!
But in reality, it's not -- using formula while trying to get breastfeeding
established puts you on that slippery slope toward early weaning. You give the
baby formula to satisfy it, which means that it doesn't nurse as much, your body
doesn't get the signal to increase production, so you use more formula, etc.,
etc.

Formula companies will also send you coupons for formula. In the beginning, the
coupons are for pretty big amounts -- $5, $10. Then the amounts start to get
smaller and smaller and then the coupons disappear. Guess what? By the time
you're paying for the formula all by yourself, the chances of relactating are
slim.

You are now owned by the formula company.


Tracy

Geri and sometimes Brian

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:58:00 PM9/16/02