Lipfinity or Outlast
Xtal
one you find better and why?
Thanks,
Chris
Tungsten35
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
Stevie
Sophie
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
Max Factor.
"Sophie" <fakea...@home.com> wrote in message
news:uo9m0s6...@corp.supernews.com...
Roseann
> 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
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
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
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
> >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
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.
Charles L. Perrin
>>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
"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.
>
die each year from it.
Roseann
"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.
>
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
(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
>>die each year from it.
Perhaps they should be marketing birth control instead.
***
Geri
"Got an issue? Here's a tissue."
Nigel Powers
Dana Carpender
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
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
>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.
Dana Carpender
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
product
> safely and why would they be dying? What are the crude business
practices?
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.
Dana Carpender
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
>WHO's code.
Who does this code have jurisdiction over?
JennP
"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
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> >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
> You'll have to tell me what they are exactly, as I don't know.
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
JennP
JennP
"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
>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
>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
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
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
Well, except that a lot of people will think you're rotten, and refuse
to do business with you.
JennP
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> >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
>
same way.
Dana Carpender
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
"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
>to do business with you.
How much profit has the boycott cost Nestle, et al?
Geri and sometimes Brian
>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
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
>>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
"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
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
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
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
>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
>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
>>
>How can anyone possibly know?
How can you know if the boycott is working then, though?
Tracy Cramer
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, $10. Then the amounts start to get
smaller and smaller and then the coupons disappear. Guess what? By the time
you're paying for the formula all by yourself, the chances of relactating are
slim.
You are now owned by the formula company.
Tracy
Geri and sometimes Brian
You can't really blame the companies for doing business. The responsiblity
lies with the parents to educate themselves.
Charles L. Perrin
wrote:
>They haven't gotten any of my money since 1978.
>That's a lot of candy bars.
And to think of all the pets that are now going to have to give up
Purina <whatever> Chow. :-(
--
Visit Charlie's Sneaker Pages:
http://sneakers.pair.com/
JennP
"Trilby" <ps...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:Dmxh9.669$a5.1...@news.uchicago.edu...
> 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. ;)
LOL! Or family sleeping arrangements!
JennP.
JennP
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> Cloth diapers are cool! I wish we used them at the hospital. They are
lots
> more environmentally friendly.
I'm surprised that they don't. They told me at my hospital that they use
cloth on newborns to make sure they are wetting enough diapers properly in
the first day or so. It's hard to tell with the disposables they have today.
But, they use the little teeny prefolds with pins. I wouldn't want to be
pinning cloth diapers on newborns all the time.
JennP.
Lily
<<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.>>
Cool! A GWB.
Lily
Tracy Cramer
wrote:
>You can't really blame the companies for doing business.
Doing business is one thing. Using underhanded marketing tactics to win
"clients" away from your competition (breastfeeding) isn't ethical, IMO. It
wouldn't be so bad if the "clients" could go back to the other product
(breastmilk), but it's quite difficult to do so once you've weaned your baby.
It's unethical to me to cut off a parent's choices.
I've written quite extensive posts in the past about the formula companies'
marketing, so if you're interested, you could google my name with
misc.kids.breastfeeding.
>The responsiblity lies with the parents to educate themselves.
You're right, it does. Unfortunately, if you look at the stats, it seems parents
aren't educating themselves. The US is a bottle-feeding culture, so a lot of
things have to change, including public perception of breastfeeding and parental
understanding of the risks of using formula.
Increasing the breastfeeding rates in the US will benefit us all as it can help
cut health care costs. If all women breastfed their babies for 12 weeks, it's
estimated that $2-4 billion could be saved annually in the US.
There are many, many reasons for encouraging new parents to educate themselves
about breastfeeding -- too many to go into here because, well, this is
alt.fashion.
ob alt.fashion: Most nursing bras are so ugly, it's not funny, but Bravado makes
some that are kind of cool. See them at http://www.bravadodesigns.com
Tracy
Frayed
"Tracy Cramer" <tlcra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
::
: You're right, it does. Unfortunately, if you look at the stats, it seems
parents
: aren't educating themselves. The US is a bottle-feeding culture, so a lot of
: things have to change, including public perception of breastfeeding and
parental
: understanding of the risks of using formula.
Hmmmmmmm........ nearly EVERYONE I know, including yours truly, has
nursed their baby. My father, not USA born, didn't want my mother to
nurse us. Breastfeeding is a choice, a personal choice, let's not turn this
into
another way to tyrannize women (not saying YOU are doing it, but hey, I
live in the Bay Area.)
Karen, the udder white meat with lactAIM
Trilby
Geri and sometimes Brian <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote:
>>You are now owned by the formula company.
>
>You can't really blame the companies for doing business. The responsiblity
>lies with the parents to educate themselves.
>
>***
>Geri
>
they're doing, you boycott the products and get the word out.
It's off-topic as the day is long, but I agree with Tracy.
And personally, I think it's sleazy for hospitals and doctors to hand
out promotional materials from pharmaceutical companies, too.
More on-topic: the dowdiest years of my life were spent in nursing
clothes. They make maternity clothes look like runway fashion.
With my second child I just gave up and made do with regular clothes.
Priscilla
Trilby
Newborns don't squirm very much. Their legs are curled straight up sort of
like a well-trussed roasting chicken's, so getting their legs straightened
out can be something of a challenge, but in general, they're pretty well
behaved.
Once they can roll over, sit up, etc.--THAT's when it gets challenging.
But I used pins on two babies and never stuck anybody. Diapering a baby
isn't exactly rocket science--although I had to keep the instructions on
how to fold and pin a diaper handy for babysitters--most of them had never
used a cloth diaper.
Obfash: the thickly quilted cloth diaper/rubber pants combination is key
to the retro padded-baby-tushie silhouette and funny toddler waddle.
Priscilla
Geri and sometimes Brian
Has it? The only way I would know about this boycott is from the people on
this ng who have discussed it and one other ngI am on. The boycott is most
likely being carried on only by people who care about such things and have the
mindset not to use any of the products.
For example, I have been reading this thread and find it interesting. Will it
change my buying habits? No. It is not a subject I feel strongly about.
Stacy Ferguson
>
>
>"Tracy Cramer" <tlcra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
As an immunologist, at this point, I think I should explicitly mention the
real problem with bottle-feeding in third world countries since it's only
been stated indirectly. Breast milk contains a high level of maternal
antibody that is protective to infants, who do not have a sufficient level of
their own serum antibody to protect them from endemic diseases.
Formula does NOT contain these antibodies. In a third world country,
where medical care is not available to every mother with a child dying from
a common disease, the difference between reliance on formula and
breast milk could be a matter of life and death. We have clean water, top
notch medical care and far fewer have stressed immune systems due to
malnutrition and the other hazards faced by less fortunate mothers
elsewhere.
Personally, as a feminist, I am not closed to looking at potential
"tyrannization" of women but in this particular case, I don't consider
breastfeeding a simple matter of choice, although it is less of an issue in
the US, where prompt medical care is available to save children who
would die in a country where that is not an option. I can think of nothing
less appealing to me than having an infant attached to my boob and I
have my doubts about its role in "bonding", as though a bottle fed infant is
more likely to grow up into an axe-murderer. However, if I decide to have a
child, I will absolutely breast feed for the reasons I mentioned above.
I don't care how Nestle makes its money here and I agree with others who
believe that parents should educate themselves on this issue.
Unfortunately, pre and post-natal education in third world countries is, at
best, hard to come by and at worst, non-existent and therefore, I have
serious issues with a company going in to a third world country and, as I
see it, taking AWAY what is essentially medication, passive antibody
prophylaxis/therapy through breast milk.
Stacy
Dana Carpender
Geri and sometimes Brian wrote:
>
> >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.
>
>
Well, depends on where you live. Around here, cloth is more
environmentally friendly. In a place like San Diego, where drought is
an almost-constant fact of life, disposable is probably the better
choice.
But cloth is also cheaper to use.
Dana Carpender
Geri and sometimes Brian wrote:
>
> >> 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?
>
Well, Nestle did feel the need to comply for a while, so clearly they
were feeling the pressure at one point.
Dana Carpender
"Charles L. Perrin" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 03:31:47 GMT, ps...@midway.uchicago.edu (Trilby)
> wrote:
>
> >They haven't gotten any of my money since 1978.
> >That's a lot of candy bars.
>
> And to think of all the pets that are now going to have to give up
> Purina <whatever> Chow. :-(
>
Eh, it's junk food for pets anyway.
Bette Noir
> >You are now owned by the formula company.
>
> You can't really blame the companies for doing business.
We can't blame a company for sleazy practices? Anything anyone does
is A-OK, just so long they are "doing business?"
The responsiblity
> lies with the parents to educate themselves.
"Let them eat cake."
JennP
> Obfash: the thickly quilted cloth diaper/rubber pants combination is key
> to the retro padded-baby-tushie silhouette and funny toddler waddle.
With #2 (not yet conceived) I've been seriously considering cloth diapering.
I have also considered switching over for ds now, but he's almost two and
probably will be potty trained soon. The new diapers/covers are really
cute!
JennP.
Roseann
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
Every mom I have ever talked to has hated those cheap plastic diaper bags.
They do have what they call a breastfeeders bag, but it still has formula
samples in it, along with breast pads. At least that is what they gave away
at my hospital.
--
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
Trilby
Being a retroholic, I went with the old-fashioned kind. I bought four
dozen heavy duty quilted ones from a laundry that was going out of
business. And rubber pants, not those fancy covers. Velcro is wonderful,
but it's a pain to launder because of the way lint sticks to it.
I'll never forget one exchange I had with the parent of a diaper-aged
child. When he noticed that my son was wearing cloth diapers, he asked me,
"Do you wash them?" I told him--"No--I figure why bother--they're just
going to get dirty again."
Of course, he meant "Do you wash them at home, or do you send them out?"
But I couldn't help messing with him a little bit. ;)
Caryperk39
>From: Dana Carpender dcar...@kiva.net
>Date: 9/17/2002 9:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3D875B3F...@kiva.net>
>
>
>
>"Charles L. Perrin" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 03:31:47 GMT, ps...@midway.uchicago.edu (Trilby)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >They haven't gotten any of my money since 1978.
>> >That's a lot of candy bars.
>>
>> And to think of all the pets that are now going to have to give up
>> Purina <whatever> Chow. :-(
>>
>
>Eh, it's junk food for pets anyway.
>
>--
>Dana W. Carpender
>Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
oh, puhleeze. are you kidding?
maybe there's a book in this for you.
AJ
are middle-aged people who don't know about this.
I guess it's true that many Americans aren't very well-informed.
Not that that's a surpise.
--AJ
"J Rogow" <JRo...@Newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:am7jp...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> X-No-archive: yes
>
>
>
> "Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> news:20020917112703...@mb-ft.aol.com...
> > >The bad PR has to have a negative effect on their bottom line.
> >
> > Has it? The only way I would know about this boycott is from the people
> on
> > this ng who have discussed it and one other ng I am on. The boycott is
> most
> > likely being carried on only by people who care about such things and
have
> the
> > mindset not to use any of the products.
>
> Just the fact that this is such a topic of discussion on Usenet makes it
> probable that more people will boycott the Nestles product lines.
>
> > For example, I have been reading this thread and find it interesting.
> Will it
> > change my buying habits? No. It is not a subject I feel strongly
about.
>
> However, for those who do feel strongly, they are making their feelings
> known in the way most likely to garner attention . . . the bottom line.
>
> If I weren't so busy right now, I'd research the stats.
>
>
>
>
Roseann
"Kathy135" <kath...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020917140932...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> >From: tlcra...@yahoo.com (Tracy Cramer)
>
> >A woman has to be *severely* malnourished not to produce breast milk.
>
> BS. I know of many nourished women who couldn't breastfeed. You also
need to
> read up on failure to thrive.
> Kathy
Which is a rare occurance. Sure, some women *say* they had a failure to
thrive situation, but really, it usually comes down to not nursing enough,
or using bottles, which diminishes supply.
I think maybe you need to read up on things. Your post about giving them
something until the milk comes in is simply misinformation. There really is
no reason to give anything else, unless the milk doesn't come in at all
(again, very rare)
Dana Carpender
Caryperk39 wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: OT/Nestle was Re: Lipfinity or Outlast
> >From: Dana Carpender dcar...@kiva.net
> >Date: 9/17/2002 9:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3D875B3F...@kiva.net>
> >
> >
> >
> >"Charles L. Perrin" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 03:31:47 GMT, ps...@midway.uchicago.edu (Trilby)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >They haven't gotten any of my money since 1978.
> >> >That's a lot of candy bars.
> >>
> >> And to think of all the pets that are now going to have to give up
> >> Purina <whatever> Chow. :-(
> >>
> >
> >Eh, it's junk food for pets anyway.
> >
> oh, puhleeze. are you kidding?
>
> maybe there's a book in this for you.
Not coming from me. Coming from my vet (who, BTW, does *not* sell me
pet food.) You're aware that obesity and diabetes are epidemic in pets,
just like they are in people? Tooth decay, too. I've seen estimates
that up to a third of vet practice now consists of dental care for pets
eating lousy food.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
Geri and sometimes Brian
>are middle-aged people who don't know about this.
I would hazard a guess that there are a *lot*. It would have to be a subject
that many people would have interest in/care about I think, and this is pretty
specialized.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>an almost-constant fact of life, disposable is probably the better
>choice.
Except for certain brands, aren't disposable diapers non-biodegradable? (Kind
of like
Twinkies - things that archaeologists will find 2000 years from now that define
our culture.)
Geri and sometimes Brian
Our patient base loves everything free.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>is A-OK, just so long they are "doing business?"
Unless they are breaking the law, they are free to do business as they choose.
>"Let them eat cake."
That is kind of passing the responsibility buck, IMO. If you have a kid, you
need to be responsible enough to find out what is best for it.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>"Do you wash them?" I told him--"No--I figure why bother--they're just
>going to get dirty again."
That is pretty funny.
Trilby
Geri and sometimes Brian <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote:
>
>That is kind of passing the responsibility buck, IMO. If you have a kid, you
>need to be responsible enough to find out what is best for it.
>
on the sides of their containers: WARNING: FORMULA FEEDING DOES NOT AID
AN INFANT'S IMMUNE SYSTEM. IT ALSO PRODUCES STINKY DIAPERS.
After all, you can't expect consumers to make a well-informed decision if
you don't provide them with all the pertinent information.
AJ
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.commotion> wrote in message
> >The thing I find amazing, indeed unbelievable, is that there
> >are middle-aged people who don't know about this.
>
> I would hazard a guess that there are a *lot*. It would have to be a
subject
> that many people would have interest in/care about I think, and this is
pretty
> specialized.
Well maybe so, but just as I can't imagine anyone who attended
college in the 1970s not to be aware there was a Gallo boycott,
I am astonished that people aren't aware of this. Let me clarify:
not so much 'people', as afers, who seem, with a few glaring
exceptions, to be a well-informed lot.
--AJ
Tracy Cramer
>>From: tlcra...@yahoo.com (Tracy Cramer)
>
>>A woman has to be *severely* malnourished not to produce breast milk.
>
>BS. I know of many nourished women who couldn't breastfeed. You also need to
>read up on failure to thrive.
Cites, please?
To quote from "Breastfeeding: A guide for the medical profession" by Ruth A.
Lawrence, MD(*):
"The volume of milk produced varies over the duration of lactation from the
first few weeks to 6 months and beyond but is remarkably predictable except for
extreme malnutrition or severe dehydration. In periods of acute water
deprivation, manifested in the healthy mother by an acute bout of vomiting and
diarrhea, the volume of milk will diminish only after the maternal urine output
has been signifcantly compromised (10% dehydration).
"Malnutrition, on the other hand, is complex, and single-nutrient deficiencies
are rare. Malnutrition does seem to have an effect on the total volume of milk
produced. In the extreme, when famine occurs, the milk supply dwindles and
ceases, with ultimate starvation of the infant. The classic study is the report
of Smith on the effects of maternal undernutrition on the newborn infant in the
Hunger Winter in Holland in 1944-1945. It was reported that the volume of milk
was slightly diminished, but the duration of lactation was not affected. The
latter is a testimony to courage rather than diet. Analysis of milk produced
showed no significant deviations from normal chemical structure. Milk was
produced at the expense of maternal tissue."
(*) Dr. Lawrence is a professor Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology at the U.
of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, and a recognized expert in the
field of human lactation.
From the International Dietary Energy Consultancy Group's 1993 Annual Report to
the ACC/SCN: "Human lactation appears to be very robust, and BMI does not
provide a useful indicator of function at the levels studied so far. Lactation
performance must become compromised when undernutrition is sufficiently severe,
but it appears that this must be in famine or near famine conditions."
It would be highly unusual for you to know "many" malnourished women in the US,
and even more unusual for you to know many malnourished women in the US who
couldn't breastfeed. More than likely breastfeeding was mismanaged, and that was
what caused the failure.
FWIW, I *have* read up on failure to thrive, thank you. As a breastfeeding peer
counselor for WIC, it was my job to be knowledgeable about all aspects of
breastfeeding.
Tracy
JennP
> Thanks, Jenn, although this doesn't talk about Nestle.
> Kathy
No, but it describes the WHO codes which you asked about.
JennP.
Tracy Cramer
>Hmmmmmmm........ nearly EVERYONE I know, including yours truly, has
>nursed their baby.
I think it's great that you live in an area where breastfeeding is the norm.
Unfortunately, in the US, only about 14% of babies are breastfed to one year,
which is the AAP's recommendation.
> My father, not USA born, didn't want my mother to nurse us.
It's interesting to me how different cultures and generations handled
breastfeeding. I got lucky and had a couple of role models, so it didn't seem
odd to me, but I know people who've never known a woman who breastfed.
> Breastfeeding is a choice, a personal choice, let's not turn this
>into another way to tyrannize women (not saying YOU are doing it, but hey, I
>live in the Bay Area.)
The only reason I'm outspoken about breastfeeding is that I see if as a way that
everyone involved wins. The baby gets the nutritional/immunological benefits,
mom gets some protection from premenopausal breast cancer and ovarian cancer,
it's cheaper so the family saves money, and it's environmentally friendly.
While I do believe it is a personal choice, it's not like deciding whether or
not to exercise or sit on the couch or to have ice cream for dinner or steamed
veggies -- it's a choice you are making *for* your child and there is a
responsibility to make the best choice you can.
I don't understand how promoting breastfeeding can be considered tyrannizing
women. I mean, it's not like it's the law that you have to breastfeed. I think
instead that it's giving women the power to use their breasts for their designed
function. There's little more powerful than knowing that you and only you can
nourish your baby -- it's just a continuation of what happened during pregnancy.
Tracy
Jlwmdhrg M. Gzkrbwk Jr.
Firstly, the disclaimers:
1- I neither know nor have the inclination to inform myself on all the details
pertaining to this discussion. Furthermore, I cannot be made to have said
inclination. My shallow pursuits simply cannot be set aside for anything more
weighty than considering an upgrade of preamplifiers in my home theatre.
2- Both of those whom I have offsprung suckled (and from their own mother, no
less), even in the case of Numbah One Son, when it was damned near impossible
for him to latch and in the case of Numbah Two Son where sufficient output to
meet his voracious appetite was often difficult to come by.
3- We did not use cloth diapers for many complex reasons, namely that my long
suffering wife told me "Hell no!" as she bellowed for her daily Haagen Dasz
offering, which she claimed helped production of the Dulce de Colostrum.
Having said THAT, I offer what I consider to be eminently sensible criteria for
making up one's mind in this (or any other consumer goods) case:
1- Is/are the company/ies engaging in marketing campaigns deliberately filled
with outright lies and falsehoods that are both provable and material? Is/are
the company/ies actively and illegally suppressing release of information
relevant to consumers?
2- Is/are the company/ies engaging in systematic coercion (directly or via
collusion) of consumers?
3- Is/are the products dangerous and harmful when used as intended/directed?
4- Is the information a consumer would require to make an intelligent choice
readily available for said cosumer to gather and utilize?
-Joe "Dilettante" in SoFla
I was eclectic before eclectic was cool. Oh, wait a minute...eclectic isn't
cool. Never mind.
Lynn A.
>
> "Charles L. Perrin" wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 03:31:47 GMT, ps...@midway.uchicago.edu (Trilby)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>They haven't gotten any of my money since 1978.
>>>That's a lot of candy bars.
>>
>>And to think of all the pets that are now going to have to give up
>>Purina <whatever> Chow. :-(
>>
>
>
> Eh, it's junk food for pets anyway.
>
Nestle only merged with Purina last year, considering
Purina's been around since the late 1800s, that's no big deal.
The vet I take our animals to says Purina is one of the
best foods out there for dogs and cats. He says the
expensive pet store foods are just that, expensive and no
better nutritionally.
Lynn