who has read Milk Money Madness?

[Can Dance]

Could we start a book discussion on it and the things she discusses?

I can't help but think about the 1.5 million babies that die every year from being ff'ed that we in the western world dont *care* because they are poor and black anyway why else could we let this happen for almost a hundred years?

[meldess]

I read the book a few years ago and wish they would come out with an updated version. IIRC, it was published in 1996? The book was infuriating, and I imagine the latest figures show the situation is even worse.

[AnalogWife]

I read it a few weeks ago, and wondered about the 1995 stats compared to now. How would Nestle get away with what they do, it seems so over the top! The things that shocked me the most in the book were the very first paragraph (about how we're mammals, how humans are supposed to breastfeed by definition of our species, and how so many have been duped by the formula companies) and the photo of the mom with the twins, how she was encouraged to bf one and bottle feed the other. That was the saddest thing I'd ever seen.

[Turkish Kate]

I read the book again last year while expecting #2 and reading all things breastfeeding-related. That, and I'm a dork who actually enjoys medical anthropology.

What strikes me is the mass export of Western (most often American) "culture" to other parts of the world, intimating that somehow if they mimic the actions of Westerners/Americans, they will somehow be smarter, more affluent, lead better lives, etc. The opposite is more often the case.

I'd be more than happy to go back and read it again, have chapter-by-chapter discussions, or something organized if someone wants to get the ball rolling.

[Meiri]

Read it many years ago.

There were, back when I was discussing it online, some very lactivist mothers who doubted the veracity of the twin photo.

I don't know.

I agree that the facts that are verifiable were very infuriating.

[Can Dance]

really? why did they think it wasn't true?
I also wish she would do an updated version. if it was depressing then, it could have only gotten worse. sigh.

[Meiri]

why did they think it wasn't true?

It was just the photo they were doubting, not the entire premise of the book.

To start with, the mother isn't holding the baby girl. Her arm is down near the floor. What's holding that baby on her lap? They thought that there doesn't seem to be any compression of the mother's clothing, no weight of the baby causing the mother's sari to be scrunched down a bit, and even as tiny as that baby was, there'd be some folding down of the fabric. Shadow perhaps not in the correct place?
Things like that. It didn't help that in another place that photo had been used, it was credited differently and the story was slightly different.

I don't know either way. It makes an effective image, but would be more so IMO if there wasn't doubt as to its authenticity.

[SwanMom]

I remember reading in some book (I think it was by Sarah Hrudy) that the girl in the photo was taken away from the mother and fed formula (probably not very much) by the mother-in-law. Maybe the baby wouldn't have looked that badly if the mom had been formula feeding it. Of course, it would have been best if she could have breastfed both babies.

[snugglebutter]

I read it college after just randomly seeing in at the library.

I owe SO MUCH to that author/book. While I had always wanted to breastfeed my future children, MM+M left me so determined to do everything I could to achieve exclusive breastfeeding. And when I was actually ttc/pg, I believe I was more able to discern good bf info/advice from bad.