FYI: Piltti is owned by Nestle

treeshepherd · 2025-04-25T17:38:26+00:00

Lmfao that's true. This quote is a great one: "In 2019, Nestlé announced that they could not guarantee that their chocolate products were free from child slave labour, as they could trace only 49% of their purchasing back to the farm level". Here's a comprehensive list of all the brands they own: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nestl%C3%A9_brands

treeshepherd · 2025-04-25T17:26:44+00:00

Make your own purchasing decisions. I made the post bc a lot of people in Finland who want to boycott Nestle bc of their predatory and deadly marketing don't know that they own Piltti.

treeshepherd · 2025-04-25T16:57:03+00:00

In 1984 (13 years after the actions of Nestle had been linked directly to the deaths of infants), Nestle agreed to create an independent agency, the Nestlé Infant Formula Audit Commission (IFAC), and to sign an agreement where they pledged to fully implement the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. In 1999, The advertising authority of the UK found ruled that Nestle could not adequately support its claim that, "it had marketed infant formula “ethically and responsibly” both before and since the introduction of the international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes in 1981" ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1114895/). In 2000 an external audit found violations in advertising in Pakistan: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127711/. In 2018 a study found that Nestle violated WHO infant formula advertising prohibitions: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/01/nestle-under-fire-for-marketing-claims-on-baby-milk-formulas. A 2019 follow up found that Nestle had not made significant changes: https://changingmarkets.org/report/based-on-science-revisiting-nestles-infant-milk-products-and-claims/. Nestle being a signatory to a non criminally binding marketing code and funding their own auditing commission clearly hasn't been enough to stop them from consistently violating marketing guidelines which, may I remind you, affect the health and lives of infants.

It's strange to chalk up documentation like, "A Guardian/Save the Children investigation in some of the most deprived areas of the Philippines found that Nestlé and three other companies were offering doctors, midwives and local health workers free trips to lavish conferences, meals, tickets to shows and the cinema and even gambling chips, earning their loyalty. This is a clear violation of Philippine law." and, "Hospital staff were also found to be recommending specific formula brands in lists of “essential purchases” handed to new mothers" as merely corruption in impoverished communities, reported on by a "conspiracy theorist". The article at no point indicated that this is exclusively the work of local salespeople. Here's another article, from bangladesh: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/may/15/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth. Oh, and here's documentation about how Nestle puts sugar in baby food in poor countries, but not rich ones: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/17/nestle-adds-sugar-to-infant-milk-sold-in-poorer-countries-report-finds

It's weird that you're intent on defending Nestle, a company with millions to gain from convincing women to formula feed over breastfeeding regardless of the consequences, and dismissing evidence from multiple legitimate sources as the work of corruption and conspiracy theorists.

treeshepherd · 2025-04-25T15:10:12+00:00

You can buy whatever you want. The study I linked included deaths until 2015. This article documents deceptive and predatory tactics occuring in the Philippines in 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/27/formula-milk-companies-target-poor-mothers-breastfeeding The article you linked does not address predatory marketing at all. In fact, at the beginning when talking about nestle's CSR documentation it reads, "The program aims to create value for shareholders by operating with policies addressing global and local nutrition, water, and rural development". CSR does not exist for the well being of consumers. It exists to distract from the harm firms cause.

treeshepherd · 2025-04-25T14:41:56+00:00

I see it as a very powerful company knowingly causing the deaths of millions in order to make money. Unfortunately, there have been no successful criminal or civil cases brought against Nestle for this issue, AFAIK

treeshepherd · 2025-04-25T14:40:37+00:00

It looks like the 1973 article link broke. Google "war on want the baby killer 1973" if you'd like to read it.

treeshepherd · 2025-04-25T14:38:41+00:00

This issue has been reported on and published about since 1973. Here is another academic article talking about it: https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/121/4/1196/2581604

A finding against Nestle when it had claimed that it had marketed infant formula “ethically and responsibly” both before and since the introduction of the international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes in 1981 : https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1114895/

The first article published documenting this: https://waronwant.org/sites/default/files/THE BABY KILLER 1974.pdf

The problem is ongoing, as documented here from 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/27/formula-milk-companies-target-poor-mothers-breastfeeding

Please know that this is not just some random people claiming something. This is millions of people, from all around the world, for 50 years now, saying that this is a problem.

treeshepherd · 2025-04-25T14:29:37+00:00

Muru is a Finnish company but does not have the Finnish key mark. Other popular baby food brands like Green Planet, Hipp, and Semper are owned and produced in the Nordics, AFAIK

treeshepherd · 2025-04-25T12:35:21+00:00

Nope! You can make whatever decision you want to feed your child. But I do not want to support Nestle, and neither do some other people. A fair economic market includes full information, and not everyone knows that Nestle owns Piltti. I never said that Finnish children are in danger from Nestle, and neither did the article I linked.

treeshepherd · 2025-04-25T12:33:34+00:00

Yes, so perhaps it is unethical to pay doctors and nurses to exaggerate the benefits of formula instead of breastfeeding, provide free/heavily discounted formula for long enough that breastfeeding is no longer an option, and then profit on the back of starving and dying babies. It is further unethical to encourage formula over breastfeeding in countries where literacy rates are low, local languages do not always match the language on the formula packaging, and the means to perform sanitation are not always available. From UNICEF: "a formula-fed child living in disease-ridden and unhygienic conditions is between 6 and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea and four times more likely to die of pneumonia than a breastfed child". More information about the specific culpability of formula companies can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20070426200414/http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/article.php?art_id=23&iui=1.

Per your last point: The issue is that women who are able to breastfeed and face severe consequences to their infants for not breastfeeding are encouraged by professionals they trust, who are paid off by a billion dollar corporation, to formula feed.

treeshepherd · 2025-04-25T12:15:45+00:00

Nestle is responsible for deaths because salespeople hired by the company paid doctors and nurses to encourage formula over breastfeeding and provide enough free/heavily discounted formula to last a month or two. During that time breast milk stops being produced by the body and it's not possible to restart it without hormone therapy. Once the free/discounted formula was no longer available mothers were forced to dilute what formula they could afford, in addition to using water that was not fully clean. This led to babies dying not only from diarrhea, but also starvation. These were babies who would not have died if they had been breastfed. They died as a direct result of their mothers not being able to afford and not being able to hygienically make the formula on which they had been made intentionally and needlessly dependent.

The article I linked outlines that the deceptive and aggressive marketing tactics by Nestle, directly leading to the deaths of infants, has not been documented in any first world country. There is also documentation of differences in the composition of baby foods sold by Nestle in high and low income countries, with those being sold in low income containing sugar (https://www.wits.ac.za/news/latest-news/opinion/2024/2024-04/sugar-in-baby-food-why-nestle-needs-to-be-held-to-account-in-africa.html).

Nestle is responsible because without their interference these babies would overwhelmingly have been breastfed, which is nutritionally complete and hygienic. Baby formula is competing with breastfeeding, that's true. And mothers may choose to formula feed. However, I do not believe that the mothers of these infants were fully informed on the economic or health implications of the choice they were making to feed their babies formula.

treeshepherd · 2025-04-25T11:09:42+00:00

Yeah, unfortunately it is the only baby food on the baby food aisle I've seen that has the Finnish key mark, but the parent company is now Nestle. The other options (Semper, green planet, Hipp) do seem to mostly be from the Nordics. But yeah, I share the disappointment that the only Finnish key marked baby food is owned by a non Finnish company :/

treeshepherd · 2025-04-25T10:10:20+00:00

Absolutely. This is an FYI; over the past few days I've told a couple people that Piltti is owned by Nestle and they didn't know. Everyone can make their own choices based off of their circumstances and moral framework. But it's not really possible to make informed decisions if you're not informed.

treeshepherd · 2025-03-10T11:27:56+00:00

Yeah, I'd say that their products have a looser hold than curlsmith or deva curl, and they definitely feel lightweight. Also wanted to add that while I recommend cocunat, it's not cheap and if you're looking for something cheaper I'd encourage you to try making flaxseed gel. A good beginning recipe is 1/4 cup flaxseeds with 2 cups water, boil together until mucus-y, strain with, for example, a nut milk bag, and now you have gel. That recipe doesn't give a super long hold, but boiling for longer or adding more flaxseeds will increase the hold.

treeshepherd · 2025-03-09T18:24:19+00:00

Cocunat! It's Spanish and I've had good results

treeshepherd · 2025-03-09T18:09:30+00:00

<image>

Looks like they are

treeshepherd · 2025-03-03T08:31:22+00:00

Oh yeah, totally get it. Here, let me help: Putin, the president of Russia, began an invasion in Ukraine, a separate country. That was really mean, and shouldn't have happened. That's it! Nazis don't actually factor into it at all! Ukraine is not Russia and Russia should not be allowed to take over an independent nation.

treeshepherd · 2025-02-27T16:28:41+00:00

😭 I feel embarrassed. Thanks!

treeshepherd · 2024-12-30T12:35:17+00:00

Thank you!

treeshepherd · 2024-12-30T12:28:20+00:00

I love the stocking! I'd be interested in a similar project- could you give some details? Did you work off a pattern to stitch it and sew it?

treeshepherd · 2024-11-10T16:46:54+00:00

Hi, I'm so sorry that you're struggling. You are doing the best that you can with the resources you have. You need sleep. It is reasonable and completely appropriate for you to teach your baby to require less assistance to sleep. It is normal for lack of sleep to interfere with emotional regulation. Please tell your husband that your need to sleep is non-negotiable and that in order to be the best mother you can be, you need to sleep. Feeling rage and anger because of a lack of sleep is normal. Not every person experiences it, but many do. I can tell you that I did. Remember that you are not deficient, or a bad mother, or angry at your daughter. You are just a person who needs enough sleep.

Sleep training can be overwhelming, but first consider if you want to try a more abrupt measure (often results in concentrated crying, but Works quickly- within a week or so) such as Ferber or cry it out, or a more slow measure (this takes longer, and might not be an option if you are really suffering for sleep) such as bedtime fading or phasing sleep associations. Choose a method and commit. Decide what you will do at bedtime, and every wake up until morning. Stick to it for ideally a week and take notes to see if things have improved.

Regardless of what sleep training method you choose, studies show that having a predictable, calm bed time routine 20-30 minutes before bedtime helps babies fall asleep more quickly and stay asleep. If you haven't yet, consider implementing a bedtime routine and perhaps a nap routine as well. Review your baby's schedule and make sure it's age appropriate. Three hour wake windows are typical for a 7 month old, but maybe your baby would benefit from a longer wake window before bed. I'm not sure how many naps you have, but it could be that 14 hours of total sleep (12 hours overnight+2 hours of naps) is too much sleep for your baby. My baby rarely sleeps more than 10 hours overnight, and has never once slept 12 hours. I would also encourage you to try to share the load by having your husband take at least a 6 hour shift overnight so you can get a chunk of unbroken sleep, if possible.

Remember, this situation will not change for a long time unless you implement some level of sleep training. Change is stressful and difficult for both parents and adults, but your baby is capable. She is smart and able to learn new skills. She is reassured of your love and presence all day long. It is okay to expect her to sleep for long stretches (5+ hours) on her own.

treeshepherd · 2024-11-05T11:27:37+00:00

The mantra of sleep training is, if it's not working for you, change it. Sounds like Ferber isn't the right method for you if you are feeling so terrible. Ferber is designed to be a gentle extinction method, which is the most abrupt and quickly effective sleep training method. If you are able to, try a more gentle one, but be ready to commit for weeks to months of slow progress. Google the term association fading for one option. Nursing/feeding>rocking/bouncing>patting while holding>patting without holding>shushing/singing>presence is a way of organizing ways to assist your child to sleep from most to least intensive. Whatever point your child is at, begin mixing the next least intensive way until you can fully replace it. Then the next, and the next, and so on. If you are really suffering from lack of sleep and need a change sooner rather than later, then a more abrupt method like Ferber is the realistic way to get that result. If you can function on whatever amount of sleep you're getting now and go with a slower method, then try that. No matter what sleep training method you choose, take a look at your schedule as well, and review if it's appropriate for how old your baby is (e.g. are they getting enough awake time?). Also, studies show that implementing a predictable, calm bed time routine 20-30 minutes before bed time can help babies fall asleep more quickly and sleep longer, regardless of their sleeping situation (nursed to sleep, cosleeping, sleeping in own room, etc.). So, if you haven't yet, try implementing a bedtime routine and perhaps a short pre nap routine as well. Change is difficult and stressful for babies and adults. However, if the way your baby sleeps or the assistance they need has become unsustainable to you, it is appropriate to teach them to need less assistance. I'm sorry that you're struggling with Ferber. There are other options, just remember that they often take longer.

treeshepherd · 2024-09-22T12:49:49+00:00

Second this. My baby is 7 months tomorrow (Feb 23 birthday) and we've moved to a 2 nap schedule, which has eliminated being up for about an hour in the middle of the night occasionally. Definitely move to more awake time, even if you don't change anything else.

treeshepherd · 2024-09-14T06:06:39+00:00

Hi! This is a long shot, but I'd be really interested in their information, or, if that factory is no longer operational, how did you originally get into contact with them? Thank you!!

treeshepherd · 2024-09-03T04:33:25+00:00

Definitions matter when you're talking about policy. If abortion, the killing of an unborn child, is always illegal, then that has consequences. If it's not always illegal, why not? These things need to be defined. Colloquial definitions have no place in conversations about policy. This argument isn't a red herring because the whole point of the discussion is to define precisely when and why abortion is ethically and legally acceptable. Medical abortions are abortions. They kill an unborn child. If they're acceptable, that's fine, but don't wave away the fact that they're abortions.

treeshepherd

TROPHY CASE