My mind is blown, a little. Especially by the "humanitarian" angle the company is using to sell this abomination. The article states that gastrointestinal distress would be minimized (compared with formula made with potentially contaminated water). I am skeptical - what about formula recalls, melamine, mechanical contamination during manufacture? Certainly we can't believe that "sterile" conditions in a factory are guaranteed? Employees are human; machines malfunction. I don't have that much faith in centralized production. And regarding AIDS in Africa? Serving formula to the two thirds of African babies that would not contract HIV through breastfeeding puts them at a serious risk of many other diseases (and the mothers too!), hinders the development of their immune system, and reduces mother-babe bonding. Not to mention the expense. How can ill parents in an impoverished country possibly afford to buy single-serving formula for every single feed? I think the money is better spent on HIV/AIDS reduction/education methods.
They also say it's "green", because it is made with "paper products", and is free of Bisphenol-A. Unfortunately, the processes to recycle and manufacture tetra-pack style packaging is not. Nor for the plastic nipple. Or to ship this product worldwide from the USA. Or to collect, assemble, and then ship the ingredients the formula will contain. So? Maybe they meant, "greener than plastic bottles". Yeah.
I suppose these people have their hearts in the right place. Or maybe they don't, and it's just all about the money. EIther way, this sort of thing leaves me shaking my head.
No comments:
Post a Comment