Editorials of The Times

The push by United States delegates to the World Health Organization to water down or scrap a simple resolution meant to encourage breast-feeding in underdeveloped countries was many things — bullying, anti-science, pro-industry, anti-public health and shortsighted, to name a few.

But it was not surprising. In fact, it’s just one of several recent examples of the Trump administration’s zeal for badgering weaker countries into tossing public health concerns aside to serve powerful business interests. The baby formula industry is worth $70 billion and, as breast-feeding has become more popular in more developed countries, the industry has pinned its hopes for growth on developing nations.

As The New York Times reported Sunday, the resolution in question stated, simply, that breast milk is the healthiest option for infants, and that steps should be taken to minimize inaccurate marketing of substitutes.

President Donald Trump’s contention on Twitter on Monday, that women need access to formula because of malnutrition, defies both science and common sense: The overwhelming balance of evidence tells us that breast milk is far more nutritious than formula. Among many other benefits, it has the potential to ward off diarrheal diseases and respiratory infections, both of which are prevalent in low-income countries.

Unethical marketing practices on the part of formula makers is a long-standing and well-established problem that has contributed to a decline in breast-feeding in low-income countries. As of 2015, less than 40 percent of babies younger than 6 months old were being breast-fed in developing countries. Doubling that proportion could save hundreds of thousands of lives.

In wealthier countries formula is a safe option and can sometimes be a godsend. But it is also nutritionally inferior to breast milk in every way. Among other things, it contains none of the antibodies available in a mother’s milk. In the developing world, those shortcomings can be far more devastating to a child’s health.

Ecuador was set to introduce this uncontroversial measure when the United States threatened “punishing trade measures” and a withdrawal of crucial military aid unless the country dropped it.

Common sense ultimately triumphed in this round of bullying, and the measure passed without much alteration — thanks, oddly enough, to Russia. But American officials are using the same tactics in similar situations, and there’s still concern that they could succeed on those fronts.

In March, U.S. trade representatives threatened to withdraw American support for the Colombian peace accord and Colombian ascension into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development unless Colombian health officials dropped several efforts to cut prescription drug prices. The measures Colombia is considering have all been permitted by the World Trade Organization, but pharmaceutical companies have pressured countries not to employ them, often by acting through American trade representatives.

Federal officials have proposed changes to global trade policy that would prohibit such measures, and that would also thwart other efforts to expand access to newly developed and urgently needed tuberculosis medications. Tuberculosis is still at epidemic levels in many low- and middle-income countries, claiming 1.7 million lives in 2016 alone, according to the World Health Organization.

It’s tempting to call this approach to public health Trumpian, simply because it has all the key hallmarks: an obvious bow to rich and powerful companies, disregard for the needs of people who are poor or sick or both, and zero attention to potential long-term consequences. But, while they might not have gone so far when it comes to baby formula, previous administrations were just as guilty as the current one when it came to drugs.

Both the Obama and Clinton administrations also sought to keep drug prices high in low-income countries — the former by preventing generic markets in India and elsewhere, and the latter by supporting policies that kept the prices of HIV medications much higher than they needed to be.

In the case of HIV, persistent global protest ultimately turned public opinion and, as it happens, the course of medical history. The United States carved out exceptions for HIV medications and allowed a generic market to emerge, which in turn sharply curbed the epidemic itself.

Should U.S. officials prevail in the current case, the outcome will be easy enough to guess: People will suffer. Industry profits will not.

Britain’s foreign secretary and its chief Brexit negotiator caused quite a stir when they resigned within 24 hours of each other because they considered Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit proposal too accommodating to Europe. But if her government weathers the resulting storm, their departures could help resolve the tortuous divorce negotiations with the European Union, which are approaching crucial deadlines.

This crisis took shape after May summoned her ministers to her official retreat at Chequers on Friday and hammered out what she called a “responsible and credible” proposal far short of the clean break she previously mooted. Though details are still to come, the plan would have Britain try to enter into a free-trade agreement with the bloc by a “common rule book for industrial goods and agricultural products,” and accept partial jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice.

Not surprisingly, May’s chief Brexit negotiator, David Davis, a proponent of a “hard Brexit,” quit on Sunday, along with his deputy. The greater shock came on Monday, when the flamboyant foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, followed suit after declaring with typical cheek that selling the prime minister’s Brexit plan would be akin to “polishing a turd.” Johnson had been a fierce advocate of a total break with the European Union, and during the Brexit referendum campaign he notoriously spread the false claim that Britain would save more than 350 million pounds a week if it left the union.

The resignations immediately set off speculation about more defections, the potential fall of May’s government and even new elections. All that could happen. But it is doubtful that hard-line Brexiteers in May’s Conservative Party can muster the 48 votes that party rules require to force a vote of confidence, much less the votes needed to force her into a leadership contest (in which Mr. Johnson would be a potential candidate).

A greater certainty is that May cannot continue to spin her wheels on Brexit, as she has been forced to do by the sharp divide in her own party and government. Britain will officially leave the union next March, but for the exit not to be a total disaster for Britain, the two sides need to agree on a broad range of issues by October, including the terms of transition, customs arrangements and the basic shape of a future trade relationship. The deal, moreover, needs the approval of the British Parliament and 27 European Union members. Time is running out.

Deliberately or not, therefore, May called the hard-liners’ bluff at Chequers. Now if she survives the ensuing storm, she will no longer have to please Tories who ideologically oppose adherence to all of the union’s laws and regulations. That does not mean an agreement with the union is imminent or easy. May’s new package is still far from anything the union can accept. And the hard-liners will not relent.

Yet an injection of common sense is welcome in a political fray that has defied all warnings, many of them from industries, of the enormous damage that would come from a break with the European Union, and especially of an abrupt and uncontrolled break. It raised the possibility of an extension of the Brexit deadline, and, among ardent opponents of a break, even hopes of a new referendum (rejected, for now, by May).

“I can only regret that the idea of #Brexit has not left with Davis and Johnson,” tweeted Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council. “But ... who knows?” A slight uptick in financial markets suggested a similar glimmer of hope.

President Donald Trump, who arrives in London on Thursday, is unlikely to give common sense a greater boost, but ... who knows?