upworthy

corporations

Family

Trump's tweet about the breastfeeding resolution was complete nonsense. Here's why.

In a move that baffled much of the world, the U.S. tried to shut down a global resolution to encourage breastfeeding.

For decades, research has tended to show that human breast milk — when it's possible to use it — is the safest, healthiest food for babies around the world. A 2016 series in the British medical journal The Lancet — the most in-depth analysis of the health impact of breastfeeding to date — concluded that more than 800,000 babies and 20,000 mothers' lives could be saved each year with universal breastfeeding, at a cost savings of $300 billion.

A mother in the Central African Republic breastfeeds her child while they wait to see the doctor in a clinic with no running water. Photo via Florent Vergnes/Getty Images.

So when the U.S. delegation to the World Health Assembly voiced strong opposition to a resolution that encourages breastfeeding — not barring access to formula or curtailing mothers' choices in feeding their children but just encouraging breastfeeding — many were understandably flummoxed. The purpose of the resolution was to prevent misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes and limit the promotion of formula in hospitals around the world.

But at the spring 2018 World Health Assembly, the U.S. tried to shut the resolution down, even going so far as to threaten small countries proposing the measure with trade punishments and military aid withdrawal.

Threatening other nations. Over breastfeeding. Yes, really.

President Donald Trump retorted to the Times report with a tweet, displaying a stunning lack of knowledge on the subject.

"The failing NY Times Fake News story today about breast feeding must be called out," Trump wrote. "The U.S. strongly supports breast feeding but we don't believe women should be denied access to formula. Many women need this option because of malnutrition and poverty."

Each sentence of that tweet contains falsehoods:

1. The New York Times has doubled its stock shares since the 2016 election. It has also won more Pulitzer prizes — the highest award in journalism — than any other news outlet. By no measure is it "failing."

2. Nothing in the breastfeeding resolution suggested denying women access to formula. Formula is sometimes necessary, and women should definitely have the option to choose how they feed their babies — but nothing in the resolution would prevent that. It was about limiting the misleading and predatory marketing and promotionof formula.

3. Malnutrition and poverty are exactly why formula should notbe heavily marketed to mothers, especially in developing nations. Formula is expensive, requires clean water to make, and requires bottles to be sanitized. When moms can't afford it long term, formula gets diluted, and babies don't get the nutrients they need. And unless it's severe, a mother's malnutrition doesn't affect the quantity or quality of her breast milk, so in places where poverty and moderate malnutrition are prevalent breastfeeding is especially important.

So why oppose a measure designed to promote the health and save the lives of infants and mothers? Follow the money.

Since the early 1980s, health advocates have fought to protect vulnerable mothers from predatory baby formula marketers, especially in developing nations. Many resolutions have been passed over the years to promote breastfeeding education and limit such marketing tactics.

But it's not in the baby formula companies' interest to have their product promotion hampered. When the U.S. so clearly puts the interests of corporations over the health of moms and babies, we're in a world of hurt.

Photo via Noel Celis/Getty Images.

To be fair, the Trump administration is not the first to put corporate interests ahead of the public.

Kowtowing to big business isn't new to American politics. A landmark 2014 study from Princeton and Northwestern researchers concluded that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

While the U.S. has been a corporatocracy for much longer than two years, this administration has been far more bold and brazen about it than most. Trump's cabinet has more big business leaders with no government or public service experience than any other president's. Some of them have been leading departments that they directly or indirectly opposed when they were in the private sector. Some (*cough* Ben Carson) have been leading departments they had no experience with. There are real-world consequences to such elections and appointments.

The move to halt the breastfeeding resolution, like so many other moves influenced by corporate money, would have gone unnoticed if not for the Times report.

For a long time, our lawmakers have placed corporate interests above the will of the people — a fact that we would not know were it not for journalists shedding light on what's happening under the radar.

People's faith and trust in the news media has taken a beating with the constant barrage of attacks from Trump and others. But how are we supposed to place faith in our government when we know that policy is being bought and paid for by profit-driven industries?

The press must keep playing its vital role in our democracy — or rather, our corporatocracy — to preserve whatever power the people have left. And the people must use our power at the ballot box if we don't want to continue to be ruled by big business.

From Your Site Articles
More

Google's 2017 energy plan has been years in the making — and they just might pull it off.

Google's New Year's resolution is good for all of us.

If Google was at a holiday party with the rest of the Fortune 500 companies, it would definitely have a New Year's resolution worth bragging about.

The company intends to be powered entirely be renewable energy in 2017.

Image via iStock.

Now those other Fortune 500 companies might go, "Hold on, Google, not so fast. We know you're one heck of an impressive tech company, but you employ over 60,000 people all over the world! Think you might want to set a more realistic goal?"

To which Google would probably say, "Nah, I'm good."

Of course, this isn't the kind of goal you hit overnight. Google has been laying the groundwork to hit this "landmark moment" for years.

Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the Mojave Desert. Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images.

According to a post on Google's blog by senior vice president of technical infrastructure, Urs Hölzle, Google is the largest corporate buyer of renewable energy in the world. Last year, the company purchased 44% of the power needed to run the entire company from solar and wind farms, but it began pursuing renewable energy much earlier than that.

In 2010, Google contracted with 114-watt wind farm in Iowa. The company also became one of three investors of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS), the world's largest solar power tower plant back in 2011. Oh and no big deal, but Google's been working toward carbon neutrality (meaning its energy production cancels out its emissions) since 2007.

Photo via Google. Used with permission.

So yeah, you could say Google had a bit of a head start on its 2017 New Year's resolution.

If you're thinking this is the kind of initiative that only a company like Google can do because Google has a ton of money and renewable energy is expensive, think again.

According to Google's extensive environmental report, the cost of wind and solar energy has dropped 60%-80% over the last six years. So not only is that 2017 renewable energy goal good for the planet, it's good for their business as well. And if there's anything most companies can get behind, it's saving money.

All in all, Google has invested more than $2.5 billion in renewable energy sources all over the world and also works to help other organizations lower their emissions as part of its commitment to doing whatever it can to combat the very real threat climate change poses to our planet.

Photo via Google. Used with permission.

Google isn't alone in trying to make a shift toward renewable energy. Microsoft reports that its been carbon neutral since 2012. Pearson, the world's largest education company has been committed to total carbon neutrality since 2009, and has maintained it ever since. And that's just two of 100 companies in the United States that have committed to operating on 100% renewable energy sources in the next few years.

According to data collected by the Climate Group, if companies worldwide committed to this endeavor, global carbon emissions would drop by 15%.

In cleaning up their energy acts, companies like Google, Microsoft, and Pearson are setting a great example for other companies worldwide to follow.

Photo by AFP.

It will take a certain amount of initiative, especially from smaller companies, to make a full shift to renewable energy. Even Google is facing some challenges in meeting its 2017 goal. For one, its data centers require the most amount of energy, and even though use of artificial intelligence has cut the need down by 15%, needs keep mounting.

Google is determined to keep pushing forward, facing each new challenge as it arises because combatting climate change is a marathon, not a sprint. And thanks to the climate summit in Paris in 2015, more countries' industries are taking up similar emissions pledges.

The clean energy gauntlet has been thrown by some of the most influential companies in the world. Hopefully their resolutions will inspire others who don't want to be left behind in the pollution dust.

Family

Lessening how much stuff you have can bring you joy. But it can also protect our planet.

True
Savers

Have you ever thought about how much stuff you have?

Think about everything — from furniture to appliances all the way to that shirt you bought on sale that one time that you swear you're going to wear one day. How much do you estimate it adds up to? (Don't worry, we'll wait.)

Well? GIF via "Coming to America."

Have that number in mind? Hold on to it.

Now get this: The number of things in the average American home by one projection is 300,000.

Yes, that's a huge number. (Although when you consider all the little knickknacks we have lying around, 300,000 might not be that bad? I mean, my kitchen drawer alone probably has a thousand things in it right now.)

Story of my life.

But when you compare that number to people living a minimalist lifestyle, 300,000 things can seem astronomical.

For instance, one man from Japan, Fumio Sasaki, has only 150 items to his name. That's it! Yet he's perfectly content and feels that having less stuff has allowed him to hone in on what really matters in life.

He told Reuters, "Spending less time on cleaning or shopping means I have more time to spend with friends, go out, or travel on my days off. I have become a lot more active."

Minimalists Joshua Fields Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus sum it up perfectly on their website, aptly titled The Minimalists, by saying: "Minimalism is a tool to rid yourself of life’s excess in favor of focusing on what’s important — so you can find happiness, fulfillment, and freedom."

Granted, owning only 150 things may be a bit more on the extreme side of minimalism, but New York Times best-selling author Marie Kondo presents a slightly different approach.

In her world-renowned book "The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up," Kondo writes about getting rid of stuff that doesn't bring you joy so as to maximize your own happiness. You can own as little or as much as you like, but if that DVD collection of "Dawson's Creek" you've had lying around for years doesn't really make you feel anything anymore, chuck it!

Don't worry, Dawson. It'll be OK. GIF via "Dawson's Creek."

Now, whichever side of the spectrum you gravitate more toward, the same idea seems to come out — clearing away clutter can actually change your life for the better.

That being said, do a lot of us have too much stuff?

Back in 2007, Annie Leonard answered that question with her revolutionary documentary, "The Story of Stuff." She brought to light how people's desire for more was severely hurting our planet's resources and the health of many.

The life cycle of stuff: extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and disposal. Image via The Story of Stuff Project/YouTube.

As more and more people buy and consume more things, big businesses are compelled to produce more products at a quicker rate to ensure a profit. But in the process, they pay little attention to the depletion of natural resources and, of course, the accumulation of waste. It's a vicious cycle.

That's where The Story of Stuff Project comes in.

It's a community of changemakers all working toward continuing the mission that the original documentary set in motion.

"The Story of Stuff Project exists to look at the system of the materials in our lives and the economies that support them — from extraction to disposal," Stiv Wilson, director of campaigns, explained. "We’re really concerned with how we make use and dispose of the stuff in our lives and ultimately, what we do with the project is create stories about different points in the system and mobilize citizens to then take action towards metric outcomes that benefit both the environment and people."

When stages in the life cycle work together, great things can happen. GIF via The Story of Stuff Project/YouTube.

Through different methods of storytelling — from podcasts to books to mini-movies — The Story of Stuff Project is zeroing in on important issues that have a global impact. Whether it's their tell-all on the hazards of plastic water bottles or their movement to ban plastic microbeads in toiletries from wreaking havoc on the ecosystem, there is no doubt these changemakers are telling the stories that can help make the world a better place.

Remember that number from the beginning? Think about it again.

A lot us can get caught up in wanting more stuff. But with a little reevaluation, keeping our numbers down makes it possible to improve our own well-being, the well-being of others, and the planet.

And should you decide to start lessening the things that don't bring you joy, keep in mind that donating it could spark some joy in someone else. Maybe it's just a matter of finding a creative way to reuse it.

In fact, a little creativity can go a long way. One study found that if 300 million Americans reused just one shirt, that would save 210 billion gallons of water and 1 billion pounds of CO2. Imagine that.

So next time you think about throwing away some stuff, just remember all the other factors that come along with it. Yes, it might seem pretty small at first — but trust us — the impact is monumental.

Trending Stories