Breast Feeding In Church?

[Bernard Gui]

From the Seagull Monument on Temple Square:

Beautiful statue, but not appropriate for sacrament meeting.

[Bernard Gui]

I recommend this book: A Return to Modesty: Discovering The Lost Virtue by Wendy Shalit

for an interesting view on this subject. Mrs. Gui recommends it, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/shalit-modesty.html

Modesty is indeed the lost virtue. Most people don't even know what it means, other

than some sort of old-fashioned prudery. Those who possess it are mocked.

[Stargazer]

It's a fact of nature that the more "modest" a women is, the more layers that a man can fantasize about unwrapping. And it's all relative. In the Victorian society where women covered their ankles, men used to get off on ankles. In closed LDS societies, people still seem to feel that shoulders are considered risqué. But I don't hear about shoulder fixations in the rest of American society. And nobody outside of America has the same fixation that Americans do about boobs.

You're largely correct here, except for the bit about "nobody outside of America" has this fixation. I call BS on this. Nobody is a very absolute term which you should only rarely use. For a start, how are you going to quantify the fixation? Such that you can make an accurate comparison?

I have lived in England and Germany, and female breasts are very much objects of fixation.

[Maidservant]

When I watch a movie or television show and a man is shown naked from the waist up and the camera slowly moves from his torso, which is typically oiled or wet, to his head, I consider it as next to porn. There is no arguing with this aside from unfounded denial. The media is trying to make men's bodies a sex object the same as it has already done to women's. Our daughters are growing up with this leering and ogling being ok, and not only ok, but accepted and encouraged. I for one have always been thankful for the modesty of our young women, but I believe Satan has found a method that will work. I believe that we will see more and more of this becoming even more crude. I believe that if they haven't started speaking to the young women about this that we will within the next 5 or so years.

There is often a difference between art and pornography. There are things that are not immodest regardless of the fact that in another forum they would be. However, society does make them so. The male torso was not treated by the media in the same manner even 15 years ago, it is slowly being used more and more as a sexual tool to gain women's attention. I was at a swimming pool once and saw a young man move out of the pool, it was a moment that hollywood can barely match, but is trying to. I watched as nearly every woman gawked, out of twenty or so women that were around the pool only one did not gawk. These women were mainly LDS and mainly women that were probably temple worthy. Had the same exact thing occurred but in reverse, the opinion of men behaving in the exact same way would have been one of disgust, and it should have been. Society, mainly due to the media, is making the male torso something that is needing covering.

I do not want my daughters to become as the stereotypical man. If we do not move against this influence, if we do not make statements concerning it, we will see a time soon when the stereotypical woman will be just as coarse as the stereotypical man. My daughters are better than that, and I hope I and my children and my children's children do not have to work hard to allow my grandaughters, great grandaughters, and so on, to be women of the same caliber as my daughters are. I don't see this as the case, even now I have to work harder than my parents did at keeping my daughters strong. I do not like to see that this is becoming the case, but the media and society are trying to make men and women equal in their degradation. I do not want my daughters to have a more difficult time maintaining their virtue, and I preferred it when I needed to worry more about their modesty than about the modesty of the men around them and in the media.

I agree that it is our approach and paradigm toward the human body that is degrading, not the body itself, and here specifically the male torso. Is the answer then to bow to the paradigm or to challenge it? I don't actually know the answer at least for everyone, but I do know the answer of what I need to do.

We haven't brought up in this discussion about doctor's examinations by both genders, on both genders, and that this is acceptable (in other modesty cultures, it often is not). But this is a matter of course for LDS people, in fact, women and men are encouraged to pursue medicine as they wish and practice it fully and freely. Of course, no one performs a medical examination in a Sacrament Meeting.

This does not devoid others of the responsibility of consideration of others in their own modesty.

You know I ponder this quite a bit, and it seems like something right, and it may be, but at what point do I literally shop for clothes and make selections from my closet based on other people, and for the purpose of minimizing my body shame before them? There are lots of choices we make daily (not just about clothing) that show our courtesy to other people, surely, but again, even with those kinds of choices, when does 'courtesy' become 'people pleasing and supressing yourself'? Perhaps its a fine line. I do like what Brother Gui says about charity, although I think I'm disagreeing with his conclusions.

That's why the Islamic dress their woman the way they do. Right?

Are you serious, because otherwise I think it is a poor joke with the people who you are referring to not here to defend or explain (or maybe I just didn't understand your intent or tone here, then I'm sorry). I think hijab is a complex subject just like our modesty rules are. And the issues may be exactly the same, only with more (or less) fabric involved. Again--I ask everyone here, and myself--how much fabric do I have to wear in order to be righteous? The answer is, no one knows, because it has changed or developed before now, even in the Church, and is likely to develop again.

[smac97]

SL Tribune Article: Battles break out over breast-feeding at Mormon meetings

Wow. It's so cool that these folks, who have previously publicly agitated against the Church, are doing so again.

In the previous thread about the publicity campaign, directed against the Church by some Church members, I opined:

The "Let Women Pray Campaign" is a bit problematic. The term "campaign" itself is adversarial. Press releases for this Campaign,

such as this one

, sent to and published by the Associated Press and other media outlets, seem to be out of bounds.

...

The group which is publicly pushing for women to pray in general conference also started the wear-pants-to-church thing.

See here

. I think this group is starting with innocuous "cultural" issues within Mormonism (such as women praying in General Conference, which appears to lack a doctrinal foundation and instead is a longstanding tradition that probably deserves reconsideration), but that might end up agitating for doctrinal changes.

...

I wonder if this group would be more successful if it clearly established the parameters of its objectives, as I suspect some of the resistance to it is based on the concern that this is the beginning of a "campaign" that will culminate in demands for doctrinal changes.

...

While I agree with the general proposition that whether women can be in non-priesthood-requiring callings merits further attention and discussion, I am not sure that A) public demands for such a discussion are appropriate, and B) that there is an objective means of determining which callings must be filled by a priesthood holder.

...

Two thoughts:

First, I think the means by which we express dissatisfaction with church governance matter. Some means are kosher, others are not.

Second, I think that agitation for change, directed publicly

against

Church

by

Church members, even where the criticism or request for change is legitimate and/or presented in good faith, is inappropriate.

...

Praying in conference = not bad.

Aspiring to church callings = not good.

Publicly agitating for either prayers in conference or aspiring to church callings = not good.

...

There are all sorts of things all sorts of people would like to change about the Church. Some of these proposals are made in good faith, some aren't. Some would result in positive changes, some would not. Some would have unforeseen benefits, and some would have unforeseen drawbacks. Nevertheless, as soon as we start to treat the Church of Jesus Christ as some sort of sectarian government which has been voted into power by us, or as some sort of social club with policies that can be changed by sheer weight of popular opinion, as soon as we start engaging in behaviors that are specifically designed to foment public opinion against the Church, we have demeaned the Church.

We are not supposed to fragment ourselves into special interest groups, and then make public demonstrations designed to foist the views of our preferred group on the LDS Church by obtaining a judgment in the court of public opinion. That just ain't cool.

Priesthood holders are told that "no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." If a group of

men

in the Church banded together and mounted a publicity campaign designed to bring the weight of public opinion down on the Brethren as pertaining to some particular grievance, I don't think we'd see an outpouring of support for this endeavor. So I'm not about to treat the folks described in this thread any differently just 'cuz they are

women

. I don't think that women should be afforded some sort of special privilege to publicly agitate against the Church just because of their gender. They may be right in their request, but I think they are wrong in the way they have made that request.

I am having the same reaction to these "lacktivists." They may have a legitimate grievance, but I strongly dislike the way they are going about airing it.

And I am not sure that this grievance is altogether reasonable. The article above quotes the activist group as follows: "We represent the rights of LDS women to breast-feed their children in their ward houses. We stand for the rights of mothers to feed their babies where, when, why and how they may," the group’s statement of purpose reads. "We maintain that it is neither immodest nor immoral for a woman to breast-feed her child as openly as she pleases. We maintain that mothers have the right to be safe from discipline, discrimination and persecution for nursing in public."

So a woman whipping her top off in the middle of Sacrament Meeting to nurse a wee bairn is apparently part of the plan here, right?

Some of you may say that I am wrong in my interpretation, that some measure of decorum, common sense, and consideration of others is obviously in order. If so, I applaud that response, but then what's the point of this brouhaha? Reasonable accommodation of, and common sense utilized by, nursing mothers is precisely what goes on for 99% of women in the Church. Why, then, publicly agitate against the Church for a problem that only arises rarely and sporadically? Why make public demands against the Church? Why orchestrate a PR campaign involving newspaper articles designed to make the Church look bad and to bring social pressure to bear against it? Why lionize and depict as a victim a woman who left activity in the Church over this?

The article concludes as follows:

One of the issues, Alderks says, is common Mormon views of female bodies and modesty.

"If a man sees me breast-feeding and is thinking sexually, it’s his problem," she says. "My husband says there’s nothing sexy about it."

If motherhood is an LDS woman’s highest calling, she says, "get out of our way, and let us follow our conscience on how best to do that."

Can you imagine the uproar if a man made such a "get out of our way, and let us follow our conscience" comment to a newspaper about his actions?

In the previous thread, I said: "I think this group is starting with innocuous 'cultural' issues within Mormonism (such as women praying in General Conference, which appears to lack a doctrinal foundation and instead is a longstanding tradition that probably deserves reconsideration), but that might end up agitating for doctrinal changes."

And this: "We are not supposed to fragment ourselves into special interest groups, and then make public demonstrations designed to foist the views of our preferred group on the LDS Church by obtaining a judgment in the court of public opinion. That just ain't cool."

I think this recent publicity campaign is yet another step in this process.

So here's a prediction, made on March 1, 2013: I predict that these self-appointed guardians of LDS women, and other self-appointed "leaders" of subcategories of "groups" within the Church, are going to continue to agitate. Publicly. Against the Church. They will use news media, blogs, online petitions, form letter campaigns, etc. They have started with innocuous, "how can anybody be against that"-type issues (such as women praying in General Conference, or reasonably and sensitively accommodating nursing mothers in Church settings). But such groups (not necessarily the specific group referenced in the Trib article, but groups utilizing the tactics it has adopted) will then get more aggressive, both in their objectives and in the means by which they pursue those objectives. And that aggression will be directed against the LDS Church, both generally and against its local and general leadership, and then against its doctrines. These trends will culminate in some of these self-appointed activists within the Church aligning themselves with groups and individuals outside of and hostile to the Church. These aligned factions will utilize the above-referenced news and social media tools to apply public pressure against the Church for changes not only in innocuous matters, but in more substantive matters of Church governance, policy, and even doctrine. The members of these groups who are nominal members will exploit that status to further these efforts (like Grant Palmer did to bolster the claims in and notoriety of his book). Some individual Church members involved in these efforts will adopt an in-your-face attitude, and that will lead to discipline by local leaders. These individuals will then become cause célèbres (comparisons to the "September Six" will be inevitable), and they will then exploit that status to garner further attention and to foment further agitation against the Church. Critics and enemies of the Church will, of course, be delighted with this turn of events.

This all sounds very Chicken Little-ish. I hope I am wrong, but I fear I am right.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 1, 2013 by smac97

[Yep]

Olympic Beach Volleyball.... totally unneccessary skimpy bikinis....

GG

BYU has a beach volleyball team? I was speaking to your comment on LDS run institutions.

[ERayR]

Thus Paul's admonition not to be a stumbling block for a brother. Modesty is a result of charity for one's brothers and sisters.

Charity should also flow the other way and consider the needs of the child.

[ERayR]

Are you serious, because otherwise I think it is a poor joke with the people who you are referring to not here to defend or explain (or maybe I just didn't understand your intent or tone here, then I'm sorry). I think hijab is a complex subject just like our modesty rules are. And the issues may be exactly the same, only with more (or less) fabric involved. Again--I ask everyone here, and myself--how much fabric do I have to wear in order to be righteous? The answer is, no one knows, because it has changed or developed before now, even in the Church, and is likely to develop again.

I was responding to this comment by Cobalt-70: "And nobody outside of America has the same fixation that Americans do about boobs". The Islamic women's dress is for modesty and is because of male fixation on women's body parts.

Edited March 1, 2013 by ERayR

[Yep]

I agree that it is our approach and paradigm toward the human body that is degrading, not the body itself, and here specifically the male torso. Is the answer then to bow to the paradigm or to challenge it? I don't actually know the answer at least for everyone, but I do know the answer of what I need to do.

My honest opinion is that the male and femal torso's have the same degree of sexual nature to them, simply different form. Given this I personally believe that it is a double standard that exists as of now.

What do you mean by "challenge it"? If you mean this targeting and increased sensualising of the male form. I believe that we should challenge what is happening in the media by targeting women, and it seems they target moreso, given the shows that often display this way, our young women. However, there is not sufficient ground for such as even the majority of the more modest typically do not see a problem with the state of events.

We haven't brought up in this discussion about doctor's examinations by both genders, on both genders, and that this is acceptable (in other modesty cultures, it often is not). But this is a matter of course for LDS people, in fact, women and men are encouraged to pursue medicine as they wish and practice it fully and freely. Of course, no one performs a medical examination in a Sacrament Meeting.

My wife does not believe that it is appropriate for examinations to be performed by someone of the opposite sex, on either sex. I tend toward agreeing. We allow such because there is often little or no alternative choice available

You know I ponder this quite a bit, and it seems like something right, and it may be, but at what point do I literally shop for clothes and make selections from my closet based on other people, and for the purpose of minimizing my body shame before them? There are lots of choices we make daily (not just about clothing) that show our courtesy to other people, surely, but again, even with those kinds of choices, when does 'courtesy' become 'people pleasing and supressing yourself'? Perhaps its a fine line. I do like what Brother Gui says about charity, although I think I'm disagreeing with his conclusions.

It is a line that is up to the individual. However, it is inappropriate, imo, to push the line in our style of dress just to challenge moral norms or tendencies.

Honestly, if men were told to cover their bodies until only their eyes were visible it would not bother me, so I simply don't agree with the "body shame" arguments. I don't believe any degree of covering necessitates "body shame". Men and Women should be extraordinarily proud of their bodies, and such should be expressed within the bounds that the Lord has set. I do see that the behavior of Men over the years has often caused inappropriate shame and prudish behavior within the bounds of marriage by Women. I feel that this has occurred because of the double standard held in relation to modest dress.

[mapman]

For me, this matter is very simple. If a baby needs feeding then it needs feeding. Women and children should have their needs and preferences respected. The fact that a few people think that breastfeeding can be immodest tells me that something has gone horribly wrong with the way we think about modesty in our culture.

Also, I don't think that "lactivists" are trying to campaign against the church. They want help from the leaders of the church in changing church culture. I can understand not agreeing with the way they are going about it though. They would say that the proper channels don't usually work to get their concerns to the leaders of the church.

One more thing: I don't think that modesty was ever intended to be primarily about other people. I think it is about treating your body with dignity and, well, modesty (ie not being vain). Blaming women's choice of dress (or lack thereof) for men's thoughts and actions can lead to blaming the victims of sexual harassment and rape and to sexual objectification of women's bodies. Men and women are punished for their own sins. Worry about yourself.

Edited March 1, 2013 by mapman

[BlueDreams]

Are you saying the only European based culture has this problem?

There are a few others, but yeah mostly. Honestly the thought that a woman breastfeeding is somehow sexually stimulating sounds so funny to me....it's like telling me giving birth is hot or a breast exam is immodest and arousing. Breastfeeding is only awkward when one never ever sees it....then you kinda just get used to it. Sometimes it's even maternally adorable. Most the time it's just perfunctory and routine.

Beautiful statue, but not appropriate for sacrament meeting.

But it's ok for the consecrated grounds of the temple, right in front of assembly hall?

With luv,

BD

[Maidservant]

What do you mean by "challenge it"?

Well, I guess for me, and I am still thinking through it, mind you (a thread like this helps me) . . . if we are saying that "IF the media/culture is sensualising [insert body part of either gender] THEN the appropriate 'righteous' response is to COVER [insert body part]" . . . then, to me, this response constitutes participating in and agreeing to their paradigm. How about, rather, "IF the media/culture is sensualising [insert body part] THEN the appropriate 'righteous' response is to remain open with [insert body part] while approaching it with a sacred paradigm making the other paradigm irrelevant--just refusing to play the game". Now, again, not sure on this, but so far this is what I expect of myself.

My wife does not believe that it is appropriate for examinations to be performed by someone of the opposite sex, on either sex. I tend toward agreeing. We allow such because there is often little or no alternative choice available.

Well, I'm sorry that you feel you have no choice. That isn't a good position to be in. I, too, prefer being examined or helped in my birth by female professionals and when I have a choice I generally go with that, although other times I don't think about it at all (especially the higher my pain level, ha ha, the less I care about the gender of who is helping me, ha ha). But those female professionals have been trained by learning their medical degree by all genders (which is as it should be, I think); and only in the last 100 years or less, have women even been able to be doctors, so its just a strange cup of tea all around, I guess.

I expect my sons, especially my teenage sons, to know about things pertaining to women. I expect them to be able to sit in a biology or health class and look at drawings of female anatomy and gain important knowledge in a respectful way. I expect them to handle open reference to female cycles that are taking place in the home. It's not just for the girls, I do that; it's for my sons--so that they are not barred from women's things, the same way women have been barred from men's things over history. The answer, for me, is not to avoid seeing or knowing, but to enlighten our sight. Which is easier said than done, I think, and maybe we have had to take progressive measures as a humanity and as Saints. But I personally like greater freedoms in this area--if we can handle it. But can we, hmmm?

so I simply don't agree with the "body shame" arguments. I don't believe any degree of covering necessitates "body shame". Men and Women should be extraordinarily proud of their bodies, and such should be expressed within the bounds that the Lord has set.

Well, actually I think this is healthy, and glad that's where you are at--but if only it was simply an argument in the case of myself. That IS what fuels my clothing decisions, or did. So I am trying to heal from that, and then maybe from that position, I will be able to understand more exactly what the Lord wants from me in terms of modesty--if it entails a volume of fabric, or not. Or whatever he wants me to know about it.

Honestly, if men were told to cover their bodies until only their eyes were visible it would not bother me

Ha ha, weeeelllll . . . .

This is the Tuareg tribe's tradition.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Maidservant

[ERayR]

I was responding to this comment by Cobalt-70: "And nobody outside of America has the same fixation that Americans do about boobs". The Islamic women's dress is for modesty and is because of male fixation on women's body parts.

I thought I would revisit this a little. Its not that I think that some fixation with body parts is a bad thing. Men fixated on women, women fixated on men is what preserves the human race. It is one of those things that is good as long as it is kept within proper boundaries. It would certainly be sad if it were not so.

[Yep]

Well, I guess for me, and I am still thinking through it, mind you (a thread like this helps me) . . . if we are saying that "IF the media/culture is sensualising [insert body part of either gender] THEN the appropriate 'righteous' response is to COVER [insert body part]" . . . then, to me, this response constitutes participating in and agreeing to their paradigm. How about, rather, "IF the media/culture is sensualising [insert body part] THEN the appropriate 'righteous' response is to remain open with [insert body part] while approaching it with a sacred paradigm making the other paradigm irrelevant--just refusing to play the game". Now, again, not sure on this, but so far this is what I expect of myself.

I don't necessarily believe in the covering because of this because of the media, I think men always should have been covered. I feel that we have a very bad double standard in regard to the torso and if we necessitate women cover, then men should follow suit. I don't see a proper rationale that doesn't, or perhaps shouldn't, apply to both genders.

Well, I'm sorry that you feel you have no choice. That isn't a good position to be in. I, too, prefer being examined or helped in my birth by female professionals and when I have a choice I generally go with that, although other times I don't think about it at all (especially the higher my pain level, ha ha, the less I care about the gender of who is helping me, ha ha). But those female professionals have been trained by learning their medical degree by all genders (which is as it should be, I think); and only in the last 100 years or less, have women even been able to be doctors, so its just a strange cup of tea all around, I guess.

I expect my sons, especially my teenage sons, to know about things pertaining to women. I expect them to be able to sit in a biology or health class and look at drawings of female anatomy and gain important knowledge in a respectful way. I expect them to handle open reference to female cycles that are taking place in the home. It's not just for the girls, I do that; it's for my sons--so that they are not barred from women's things, the same way women have been barred from men's things over history. The answer, for me, is not to avoid seeing or knowing, but to enlighten our sight. Which is easier said than done, I think, and maybe we have had to take progressive measures as a humanity and as Saints. But I personally like greater freedoms in this area--if we can handle it. But can we, hmmm?

I think I probably agree with your position.

Well, actually I think this is healthy, and glad that's where you are at--but if only it was simply an argument in the case of myself. That IS what fuels my clothing decisions, or did. So I am trying to heal from that, and then maybe from that position, I will be able to understand more exactly what the Lord wants from me in terms of modesty--if it entails a volume of fabric, or not. Or whatever he wants me to know about it.

I have a love hate relationship with much of the media. I feel that we, men and women, have distorted views of the physical form and what is attractive, based in what the media has done. I believe much of society's morality has been destroyed by the media. I also love the presentation of stories and things of beauty therein. It's double edged as everything tends to be.

[Cobalt-70]

I thought I would revisit this a little. Its not that I think that some fixation with body parts is a bad thing. Men fixated on women, women fixated on men is what preserves the human race. It is one of those things that is good as long as it is kept within proper boundaries. It would certainly be sad if it were not so.

I'm not responding directly to you here, but just because some percentage of men fixate on knees or ankles does not mean that women should be required to cover their knees or ankles to prevent men from melting into puddles of animalistic protoplasm. Same goes for lactating breasts. Everything is not about the men. It's about the women and their babies.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Cobalt-70

[semlogo]

I'm not responding directly to you here, but just because some percentage of men fixate on knees or ankles does not mean that women should be required to cover their knees or ankles to prevent men from melting into puddles of animalistic protoplasm. Same goes for lactating breasts. Everything is not about the men. It's about the women and their babies.

Indeed. It's time to stop blaming women for the errant thoughts of men. On my mission women made no effort to hide anything while breast feeding. It was only shocking the first time. After that, you don't even notice it anymore. It's certainly not erotic.

Freaking out about this kind of stuff is childish.

Edited March 1, 2013 by semlogo

[Hamba Tuhan]

Only in the last 100 years or less, have women even been able to be doctors.

Whenever I have the choice, I always see a female doctor: I find male doctors to be clinical and rushed in their approach whereas female doctors are thorough and compassionate. (No doubt there would be exceptions on both sides, but I haven't met a female exception yet.) It has never once crossed my mind that being examined by a female professional might in any way involve issues of 'immodesty'.

[ERayR]

I'm not responding directly to you here, but just because some percentage of men fixate on knees or ankles does not mean that women should be required to cover their knees or ankles to prevent men from melting into puddles of animalistic protoplasm. Same goes for lactating breasts. Everything is not about the men. It's about the women and their babies.

You must have misunderstood what I wrote. My point was exactly that. Go back and read I have not said any differently.

[Kenngo1969]

People,

Listen up!

There is a difference between piqued and peeked. If I am concerned that my interest might be piqued in the wrong direction, then I probably won't take a peek. I might not want my interest to be piqued to its peak if I were to take a peek at something I ought not, if you know what I mean! Got it? Good!

Sincerely,

-Ken

Self-Appointed Captain of The Homophone Division of the Grammar Police (So Sue Me! )

[Bernard Gui]

Charity should also flow the other way and consider the needs of the child.

How so? Is modesty responsible for undernourished children?

[Cobalt-70]

You must have misunderstood what I wrote. My point was exactly that. Go back and read I have not said any differently.

I understood that. That's why I said I was not directly responding to you. I was using your point as a springboard to make my point. Sorry that wasn't clear.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Cobalt-70

[ERayR]

How so? Is modesty responsible for undernourished children?

I must be stuttering today youhave taken my post at 180 degrees off.

Edited March 2, 2013 by ERayR

[Bernard Gui]

I must be stuttering today youhave taken my post at 180 degrees off.

Explain.....please.

[Bernard Gui]

There are a few others, but yeah mostly. Honestly the thought that a woman breastfeeding is somehow sexually stimulating sounds so funny to me....it's like telling me giving birth is hot or a breast exam is immodest and arousing. Breastfeeding is only awkward when one never ever sees it....then you kinda just get used to it. Sometimes it's even maternally adorable. Most the time it's just perfunctory and routine.

The act of breast feeding is maternally adorable in a maternal setting.

While childbirth may be a beautiful, even spiritual, experience, most women

would probably not want to share it with the ward in sacrament meeting.

[thesometimesaint]

How so? Is modesty responsible for undernourished children?

False modesty yes. With a lot of help from the baby formula industry.