In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Q: [Like the Science Times page on Facebook. | Sign up for the Science Times newsletter.] 
  
 The State Department declined to respond to questions, saying it could not discuss private diplomatic conversations. The Department of Health and Human Services, the lead agency in the effort to modify the resolution, explained the decision to contest the resolution’s wording but said H.H.S. was not involved in threatening Ecuador. 
  
 “The resolution as originally drafted placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children,” an H.H.S. spokesman said in an email. “We recognize not all women are able to breast-feed for a variety of reasons. These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so.” The spokesman asked to remain anonymous in order to speak more freely. 
  
 Although lobbyists from the baby food industry attended the meetings in Geneva, health advocates said they saw no direct evidence that they played a role in Washington’s strong-arm tactics. The $70 billion industry, which is dominated by a handful of American and European companies, has seen sales flatten in wealthy countries in recent years, as more women embrace breast-feeding. Over all, global sales are expected to rise by 4 percent in 2018, according to Euromonitor, with most of that growth occurring in developing nations. 
  
 The intensity of the administration’s opposition to the breast-feeding resolution stunned public health officials and foreign diplomats, who described it as a marked contrast to the Obama administration, which largely supported W.H.O.’s longstanding policy of encouraging breast-feeding. 
  
 During the deliberations, some American delegates even suggested the United States might cut its contribution to the W.H.O., several negotiators said. Washington is the single largest contributor to the health organization, providing $845 million, or roughly 15 percent of its budget, last year. ||||| US delegation to the World Health Assembly reportedly deployed threats to try to browbeat nations into backing off the resolution 
  
 Advocates for improved nutrition for babies have expressed outrage over reports that the Trump administration bullied other governments in an attempt to prevent the passage of an international resolution promoting breastfeeding. 
  
  
  
 The US delegation to the World Health Assembly in Geneva reportedly deployed threats and other heavy-handed measures to try to browbeat nations into backing off the resolution. 
  
 Under the terms of the original WHO text, countries would have encouraged their citizens to breastfeed on grounds that research overwhelmingly shows its health benefits, while warning parents to be alert to inaccurate marketing by formula milk firms. 
  
 The New York Times first reported how the Trump administration reacted forcefully to the resolution, which otherwise had the consensus support of all other assembly members. It pushed to remove a phrase from the draft text that would exhort governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding”. 
  
 How formula milk firms target mothers who can least afford it Read more 
  
 The administration also used its network of diplomats to lean on member states. Turning on the delegation from Ecuador, the US government said that unless the South American nation withdrew its backing of the resolution it would face punitive trade moves and even the potential loss of military help in its battle against gang violence. 
  
 The resolution was eventually passed with US support, but only after the Russian government reintroduced it using a modified text. 
  
 Lucy Sullivan, executive director of 1,000 Days, the US-headquartered international group working to improve nutrition for babies and infants, said in a Twitter thread that the US intervention amounted to “public health versus private profit. What is at stake: breastfeeding saves women and children’s lives. It is also bad for the multibillion-dollar global infant formula (and dairy) business.” 
  
 The online network of mothers, Moms Rising, called the US government’s move “stunning and shameful. We must do everything we can to advocate for public policies that support and empower breastfeeding moms.” 
  
 Patti Rundall of the UK-based campaign Baby Milk Action told the New York Times: “We were astonished, appalled and also saddened. What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the US holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on the best way to protect infant and young child health.” 
  
 Under an internal code of the World Health Organisation, baby formula companies are banned from explicitly targeting mothers and their health carers. Advertising is also controlled. 
  
 A Guardian investigation with Save the Children earlier this year found that formula milk firms were using aggressive methods to skirt around the regulations in order to press mothers and healthcare professionals to choose powdered milk over breastfeeding. The measures were particularly intensively deployed in the poorest regions of the world, where most growth in the baby milk formula business is now concentrated. 
  
 A plethora of studies have shown the stark health improvements brought about by breastfeeding in the US and around the world. A Harvard study in 2016 estimated that 3,340 premature deaths a year among both mothers and babies could be prevented in the US alone given adequate breastfeeding. 
  
 The milk formula industry has been struggling against stagnating sales in recent years, but is still worth $70bn annually. The small number of giants that produce it are concentrated in the US and Europe. 
  
 One of those giants, Abbott Nutrition, is part of the healthcare multinational Abbott Laboratories that contributed to Trump’s inauguration ceremonies in January 2017. 
  
 During the deliberations over the breastfeeding resolution, according to the New York Times, the US delegation made threatening suggestions that Washington would cut its funding for the WHO. As the single largest donor to the world body, awarding $845m last year, that threat would not have been taken lightly. |||||
A: 
A World Health Assembly meeting that had been expected to easily pass a resolution promoting breastfeeding turned ugly when the Trump administration got involved, reports the New York Times, citing "more than a dozen participants from several countries." The sources say that the American delegation to the United Nations-affiliated meeting in Geneva this spring fought hard for the interests of baby formula manufacturers and demanded that a resolution urging governments to "protect, promote, and support breastfeeding" as the healthiest option for babies be watered down. Ecuador, which introduced the resolution, was told that it would lose American military aid and trade deals, the sources say. The American delegation also strongly opposed language in the resolution warning parents to watch out for inaccurate marketing from formula companies, the Guardian reports. Smaller countries backed away from the resolution under US pressure, but it eventually passed with most of its original language intact after Russia supported it. A Russian source tells the Times they decided to introduce the resolution because smaller nations were being bullied. Advocates called the US moves "appalling" in light of countless studies showing that breastfeeding offers clear health benefits. "What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the US holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on the best way to protect infant and young child health,” says Patti Rundall of the Baby Milk Action campaign.