[Ed. – In a one-on-one meeting with Donald Trump at the White House on July 30, New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger implored the president “to reconsider his broad attacks on journalists, calling the president’s anti-press rhetoric ‘not just divisive but increasingly dangerous.'” Sulzberger also took aim at the phrase fake news, which is interesting and a little amusing since his own paper has been caught faking it on numerous occasions, including a great many that predated the Trump presidency. One of its most recent fibs was on July 8, when it published a story claiming that the Trump administration is opposed to breastfeeding.]
In its reporting on the meeting, the New York Times cited the reasoning behind the Trump administration’s opposition as follows: “Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.”
In their caption to a photo of a baby drinking formula the Times explained “A Brooklyn mother unable to nurse fed her child donated breast milk. The $70 billion infant formula industry has seen sales flatten in wealthy countries in recent years.”
At no point in their reporting was proof, in the form of on- or off-the-record statements, provided that the Trump administration had taken into account the position of formula companies, or evidence that formula companies had lobbied the Trump administration due to lagging American sales.
Two sources familiar with the negotiations in Geneva explained further why the United States was reticent to agree to the language surrounding breastfeeding as presented by Ecuador. In diplomatic terms, the phrase “protect” would have the connotation that breastfeeding is the policy to the exclusion of everything else. Further, these sources said that the end goal for the representative from Ecuador was to make formula by prescription only; even in areas ravaged by famine and war.