But a ban on advertising bottles and idealizing them in advertising, along with limits on formula use being pushed by medical personnel. And there are exceptions in the proposed law in case of a mother's death, etc.
As a breastfeeding advocate, I think that what the law is attempting to do - decrease interference in parents' feeding decisions by multinational formula manufacturers, and limiting advertising - is good. I don't know if banning bottles is the best way to get at those goals. There probably is a danger of old or unsafe bottles being used, or unsuitable imports, etc. Of course, even premature infants can be cup fed, but it does take time and patience and taking one's cues from the baby, which are not the norm for bottle feeding.
With a very few rare exceptions (genetic diseases like galactosemia), breastfeeding is best for every infant. It may not be easiest or most convenient for every mother. Companies like Nestle have long taken advantage of that dissonance, making enormous profits in so doing. There does need to be stringent limits on formula advertising and what these companies can do. Governments need to do a much better job in legislating things like maternity leave and pumping breaks to aid breastfeeding. The medical community needs to stop accepting so many freebies (= bribes) from the manufacturers, and start giving out evidence-based information. Perinatal medical practices need to be scrutinized and those which promote breastfeeding used.
There will always be fewer babies breastfed than there could be, and many more mothers who could but don't. Government does have a role in shaping the ways formula manufacturers, employers, advertisers, and to some extent the medical field can promote and assist breastfeeding.
= new reply since forum marked as read