a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by b_b

But even if breastfeeding were to completely supplant formula, poor mothers would still need support, as the calories have to come from somewhere. Calorie for calorie, breastfeeding is more expensive, since there is a net energetic charge for converting food to breastmilk. (Note: This isn't to say it's more expensive when all the externalities are factored in.) Therefore, food supports are probably still necessary for poor women with children, else the child cannibalize her mother. I totally agree that incentivizing formula consumption is to be avoided. However, I din't think it's wise to throw out the baby with the bathwater.





wasoxygen  ·  3775 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Mothers on the lower end of the ladder might be better off with some more of that "net energetic charge." "Wages were inversely related to BMI and obesity."

Also, calories are cheap. We could do worse than to use funds now subsidizing Big Mac Attacks to alleviate poverty.

If we are going to divert resources to fight the harmful effects of poverty, in my view simpler is better and direct cash transfers, while not perfect, have the fewest unwanted side effects. I think we agree here.

b_b  ·  3775 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yes, allocated funds are ripe for institutional abuse, whereas individual funds are mainly ripe for individual abuse, which at the very least will boost the local economy :)