Six months of breastfeeding alone could harm babies, scientists now say

[Turborama]

Source: The Guardian

Fresh review of evidence contradicts WHO guidance leaving campaigners outraged and mothers baffled

Sarah Boseley | Friday January 14 2011

To the outrage of breastfeeding campaigners and probably the utter confusion of most women with small babies, scientists today advocate rewriting the rulebook to drop the current guidance that says mothers should breastfeed exclusively for the first six months of their child's life.

It was 2001 when the World Health Organisation announced that exclusive breastfeeding for six months was best for babies. In 2003 the then Labour minister Hazel Blears adopted the recommendation for the UK. But today, in the British Medical Journal, doctors from several leading child health institutes say the evidence for the WHO guidance was never there – and that failing to start weaning babies on to solids before six months could be harmful.

=snip=

According to the paper, failing to start weaning on to solid food (they are not talking about formula milk) before six months appears to raise risks for the baby. Evidence that was unavailable when the WHO made its recommendation suggests they have a greater chance of iron deficiency anaemia, "known to be linked to irreversible adverse mental, motor or psychosocial outcomes." Unlike the US, the UK does not have a screening programme for iron deficiencies in children, so it is impossible to say if there have been problems.

Other evidence, they say, suggests that babies not introduced to certain foods earlier than six months may have a higher incidence of food allergies. "Countries where peanuts are used as weaning foods have low incidences of peanut allergy (Israel, for example)," they write.

The third potential issue is coeliac disease. The numbers of children developing coeliac disease rose in Sweden following advice to mothers to delay the introduction of gluten into their child's diet until after six months, and it fell when the recommendation reverted to four months.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/14/six-months-breastfeeding-babies-scientists

---

I liked the 1st comment...

Don't take any notice of anything these mugs say, do what you feel is right for your baby.

But don't breastfeed the buggers when they're four, that's just weird.

[Demeter]

1. I'll Drink to that!

Why every person with the slightest amount of purchased authority in the world has to get between a mother and her child I have never understood.

[Abq_Sarah]

2. harmful?

How did we, as a species, manage to survive this long?

[happyslug]

3. They are saying we should start WEANING Children before they are six months old

Not switch to formula, or do a complete weaning, but introduced the child to solid food while before they are six months old. That is all this comment is saying, nothing more, nothing less. This is what most people did for thousands if not millions of years.

Most babies by the time third are three months old want to know what you are eating and how it tastes. They still want their mother's milk but they also want more and the babies should be given more, i.e. solid food, crushed up so they can digest it, but some solid food.

Babies for about their first 24 months identify themselves with their mothers as one and the same, i.e. what happens to their mother happens to them, what happens to them, in their eyes happen to their mothers. At about age two babies start to see themselves independent of their mothers, but age three that transition is complete.

I bring this up for in the article it is mentioned that the baby want to taste what their mother is eating. That is part of that concept that they and their mother are one and the same. At the same time their are also seeing themselves, slowly but surely, as someone independent of their mother. Thus their mother is eating solid food, their want to do what their mother is doing (i.e. eat solid food) while at the same time their still need their milk. As one mother told me years ago, let the baby be a baby, leave them eat what you are eating but just make sure it is eaten not choking the baby (i.e. smash it up, make it "baby food"). Babies are human being and one of the things we do as human is eat meals together. The baby wants to do this also even if its primary food is still mother's milk. Let the baby be human, let it eat with us.

[enlightenment]

6. Agreed. I introduced cereal at 3 months, though I continued

breastfeeding for a year longer. This is not an outrageous thing.

[fleabert]

59. well said.

my three criteria for weaning are:
1. sitting up unaided.
2. absence of tongue-thrust
3. interest in food

and that should be taken to mean, 'beginning weaning' which can take 1-2 years to be completely off of breastmilk.

[freshwest]

10. Yeah, how about that.

...

[Liberal Veteran]

4. I agree. And idealy you should start them smoking at the Olive Garden by age 2.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[boppers]

42. If you start the smoking at 2, are they nice and fully cured by 3?

I never know these cooking tips for some reason.

[enough]

5. Just when I'd promised myself to maintain a civil tone, this is making it difficult.

Let's just let mothers decide.

[BlueJazz]

7. Unfortunately, perhaps a lot of Women are not as savy as you.

(being a man)...not that it's any of my business. :)

[Rage for Order]

154. It most certainly IS a man's business what a woman feeds his child

Just like it's a woman's business what a man feeds her child.

[DRex]

9. But some mothers are none too bright...

not a slight on mothers! But unfortunately it's true. I'll take medical science's recommendations over a teen mother's any day of the week, especially when they are backed by studies as clear as the Swedish gluten case mentioned above. Those results represent a real upswing in well-being of many babies.
There's a lot to be said for mothers' intuition, to be sure, but there should be clear and accurate guidelines from the medical community for those first timers without support. Also, I'm not sure why you'd be angry, as it seems this story is about the improvement of those guidelines. That's a good thing, surely.

[quakerboy]

22. Something like half of them are even below average

just sayin...

[defendandprotect]

93. The point of these reports is often to confuse the public -- what's new?

[DRex]

99. That's rather conspiratorial....

What makes you say that? Do you really think the medical community is out to get the babies of the world?
It seems the point of this report was to clarify and update reccomendations based on new evidence. ie. exactly what we pay them for.

[defendandprotect]

109. Remember the "Toxic Sludge is good for you" campaign?

For decades the medical community has been telling parents that breastfeeding wasn't

necessary -- they actually interrupted breast feeding by mothers for decades --

How many now living were never breastfed?

We began our history in this country with our government telling native American women

that they shouldn't breastfeed because their milk was "blue."

Mothers here were discouraged from ensuring that their newborns immediately got the

first milk which is COLOSTRUM -- because it was "yellow" and no good!

What about circumcision -- absolutely no medical necessity for it -- yet it goes on and on!

And -- there is no new "evidence" as is made clear in the article --

Also made clear is that 3 of the 4 authors of this report have taken research money from

forumla and baby food companies.

If you live in a conspiracy-free America, I wonder where that might be?

And this isn't only about newborns -- our "slash and burn" medical system is still recommending

medical procedures which have been found to be unnecessary or harmful --

from treatments for angina pain to surgery for prostate cancer.

[DRex]

117. Nowhere does this say not to breastfeed though...

and that's the thing. It's just saying parents shouldn't be afraid to introduce solid foods earlier, citing that this may help avoid future health problems.

I am on the same page regarding unnecessary medical treatments, and couldn't agree more about the horror of circumcision, but it's not advocating anything unnatural here. No drugs or discouraging breastfeeding. Just saying don't hold off on the solid food if your baby is showing an interest in it.

I would be suspicious of conflict of interest with the formula companies if they were telling anyone to use formula instead of breast milk, but they do not say that at all. Breast is best, they say.

I was never breastfed and I'm okay, but I'm beyond sure that breast milk is better for babies. It's the natural way, but introducing solid foods is also part of a baby's life, and I think its perfectly fine for medical science to be trying to determine when the optimal start time for introducing solids is.

I understand the suspicion and emotional reaction people have to stuff like this, but I just don't see this as such a controversial statement for a medical journal to make.

[defendandprotect]

121. With no new evidence vs natural breastfeeding, it's suggesting "HARM" can be done -- !!!

Nowhere does this say not to breastfeed though...

As usual, it's rw corporates trying to create FEAR to move their products --

Newborns do NOT have the digestive capability to deal with solids.

Again .... there is no "new evidence" provided by this study -- where 3 of 4 of the

authors have been involved in "consulting assignments" with the baby food/formula industry!


Creating FEAR is advocating something -- it's advocating that mothers return to giving

their newborns "soldis." How could you possibly miss that?

'HARMFUL' is the wording used to create fear --

I was never breastfed and I'm okay, but I'm beyond sure that breast milk is better for babies. It's the natural way, but introducing solid foods is also part of a baby's life, and I think its perfectly fine for medical science to be trying to determine when the optimal start time for introducing solids is.

If you recall the Native American, they wisely judged everything by its impact on the 7th

generation. That's not, of course, the way capitalists think -- mainly exploitation of

nature and humans for profit is on their minds. Solid foods are not natural for newborns

who do not have the capability to deal with solids -- it's even beyond digestion.

I understand the suspicion and emotional reaction people have to stuff like this, but I just don't see this as such a controversial statement for a medical journal to make.

It's a nutty statement for a medical journal to make based on "no new evidence." That doesn't

seem peculiar to you?

There is no way to look out at this ocean of capitalist corruption and crime and NOT question

the many corporations which are knee deep in fraud and deception vs the consumer.

And, sadly, the formula companies and baby food industry -- especially any contact with NESTLE --

should be highly questioned. Why in the hell, come to think of it would anyone be feeding

their child baby formula? And that happens all over the world because formula companies push

their product into hospitals and into hands of willing OB/GYNs and pediatricians! We've also

had many instances where formulas have been defective and caused serious problems.

Same with baby food industry which often introduced the new born to the harmful SALT and SUGAR

in the baby foods -- which, btw, are addictive. I would think it's probably quite likely that

any mother who is taking the time and trouble to breastfeed is also taking the time and trouble

to prepare "solids" for her child -- bad news for the formula and baby food industry!


Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. - Carl Sagan

But certainly if Sagan knew anything about it ... he wasn't telling it!!

[DRex]

127. But it's not "VS. Natural Breastfeeding!"

It says, as I do you and I, that breast feeding is the best. Nowhere does it say not to breastfeed, or to give babies formula over breastmilk, and also it does not say give solids to newborns! 4 months old is not a newborn.

Apparently, they used to say no solids till 6 months or older. Now, they are saying 6 months might be too long, judging by what we're seeing in the renowned childrens health centres we work in, and that you can introduce solids sooner. It also say to continue breastfeeding as normal while this exploration of solids is going on.

How sinister!

And what makes you think that the old information (the 6 month recommendation) is any better than this new release? It came from doctors too. Who's to say what is natural behaviour for humans and what is best for your health? A doctor, that's who.

Also, I'm not sure I get your dig on Sagan, a man who comitted his life to the spread of knowlege, and did a wonderful job of it.

[defendandprotect]

131. Of course, it is "vs breastfeeding" ...

how do you miss that? What it is saying is that NOT providing "solids" before

6 months is "HARMFUL" -- !!! :eyes:

And, of course, 4 months old is still a newborn!

Again, this study suggesting 'HARMFUL EFFECT' provided no new evidence!

A 6 month old does not have the digestive ability to deal with solids.

And what makes me think that women's groups have better information than corporations?

Because as we can see in every other issue, corporations are interested only in their

own profit -- and their ability to exploit nature and humans ... including babies!

That's their past history, as well -- and the history of formula makers pushing their

product all over the world by pushing doctors and hospitals to use it and recommend it.

Presumably, you also think every doctor is honest? How many are still doing circumcisions

depite the fact that there is no medical necessity for them?


Also, I'm not sure I get your dig on Sagan, a man who comitted his life to the spread of knowlege, and did a wonderful job of it.

Sagan imo worked to suppress information about extraterrestrial visitation and communication

he was presumably familiar with, at the request of the CIA -- and

Others have reported these visits from the CIA requesting cooperation often accompanied by

promises of fame/wealth -- or threats.

[DRex]

140. The issue is not "new evidence"...

as stated in the article, the problem with the WHO recommendation from 2001 was that is was based on no evidence at all. They are trying to rectify that by examining what evidence there really is.

Also, according to the article, the new recommendations are much more in line with what the vast majority of mothers are already doing anyway, introducing solids before 6 months. Most of them are not even breastfeeding anymore by that time, which is contrary to the recommendations of this new journal article, which recommends continued breastfeeding after the 6 month date.

I fail to see how telling mothers to continue breastfeeding and that breastfeeding is the healthiest option is somehow an attack on breastfeeding.

I just don't see the problem! They aren't selling drugs here, they're encouraging an improved dietary regimen. You keep saying that a 6 month old can't digest these foods. Again, I'll trust the doctors in the peer reviewed journal over an online forum poster. Call me crazy.

As for Sagan and the aliens, he was one of very few scientists to take the time of day to talk seriously about it, even though he couldn't believe we had been visited because of...wait for it.... no evidence!

[defendandprotect]

141. Baby food industry is using "no new evidence" to try to reverse breastfeeding ....

and the wisdom of mothers -- and those medical professionals who have studied

the issue.

Typical of corporations, this is an attempt to use FEAR and suggestions of HARMFUL

effects -- based on "no new evidence" -- to try to get mothers to feed solids to

babies before 6 months. Take the word of the 3 of 4 involved in the study who did

consulting work and took research money from the formula/baby food industry.

Preferably, mothers will stick with the information previously given by health care

professionals and pediatricians.

As for Sagan and the aliens, he was one of very few scientists to take the time of day to talk seriously about it, even though he couldn't believe we had been visited because of...wait for it.... no evidence!

Sagan spoke about it -- in double speak -- not having the courage to tell the truth.

If there was any evidence -- for instance, like an actual captured saucer -- who would have

had it? The public?

:rofl:

[DRex]

142. I guess they are taking the longview then....

"Let's kill breastfeeding by fabricating papers encouraging and extolling the virtues of breastfeeding." It's a roundabout way of getting what you want.

Again with 'the wisdom of mothers.' Wise mothers look for the best possible medical advice. Relying on intuition alone is playing with fire.

And the "information previously given" is apparently based on nothing, so I don't see why that would be any better advice. I just think you are reading something that isn't there. I would agree with you if the study was recommending a course of pharmaceuticals for infants, or if it was telling mothers not to breastfeed. But that's just not the case.

I'll just agree to disagree on the Sagan thing as it's irrelevant and I'm not really interested in having that discussion here.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

182. 4 mo. is still a newborn?!?!

:rofl:

Seriously? At 4 mo. my daughter was sitting up, crawling, and babbling at me in baby talk. I don't know a single person that would have considered her a newborn at that time.

[StarsInHerHair]

138. so you've bought the 'salt & sugar are just like bad drugs' propaganda....

I do not see them discouraging breastfeeding altogether here. SIX MONTHS is where they recommend WEANING. This obviously set off your alarm bells........your comment about salt and sugar set mine off.:party:

[defendandprotect]

147. Non-natural salt and sugar are great for you ... if you want high blood pressure and diabetes...???

If you want sugar and salt, get them naturally from fruits and vegetables --

I do not see them discouraging breastfeeding altogether here.

Why would anyone discourge breastfeeding to any degree? Though it's a great

question because the male medical profession DID exactly that and disconnected

women/babies and breastfeeding for generations in this country!


What they are saying is intended to create FEAR -- don't see how anyone can miss that?

And what they are saying is that if you are breastfeeding and not giving a newborn

"solids" BEFORE 6 months then it could be "HARMFUL."


And, again, SALT and SUGAR which are produced by corporations for profit are addictive.

That's why there is a long tradition among those who produce foods to add those

ingredients to their product!

The baby food industry was forced decades ago to remove most of the salt from their

baby foods -- presume they also limtied the sugars. That is, the salts and sugars

that were NOT naturally a part of the food -- i.e., bananas or sweet potatoes, for

instance.

[roguevalley]

33. it seems breast milk can't feed a growing brain enough to make

the proper connections and such. sounds reasonable. its a combo. Exclusive milk feeding doesn't sound right to me.

[defendandprotect]

111. What you're saying is inane....hormones/chemicals from breastmilk are used into old age...!!!

They have found that even 80 year olds are still show benefits of

breasfeeding!

Also, if you looked at the article, there is "no new evidence" being presented --

and 3 of the 4 "scientists" have taken research money from forumula and/or baby food

industry.

Breastmilk has NEVER been fully studied for all its benefits -- oddly so!

[NickB79]

122. The article talks about WEANING babies off of breastmilk, not replacing it

With formula or baby food. You can just do what people have done for thousands of years: chew up a bit of food and feed it to your baby at 3-4 mo. of age along with breastfeeding.

[defendandprotect]

132. Your response is an argument against your judgment and reasoning ....

re-read what you have posted --

When you "wean" a baby from breastmilk you are severely reducing or eliminating

breastmilk and breast feeding. How do you not understand that?

Again -- newborns do not have the capabiity to digest "solids."

And, again -- there is NO NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THIS ARTICLE -- it is simply

another attempt to undermine the wisdom of the breastfeeding community --

because not only does it deprive corporations who make soy formula milks from selling

their product -- it deprives the baby food industry.

Mothers who take the time and care to breastfeed more than likely will alos, when it

is appropriate, make their own baby food. FREE from the addictive and artificial sugars

and salt formerly added to baby food by these corporations.

Let me just remind us all here, as well - this is the history of the baby food/formula

industry. Natural sugars are available in our foods -- fruits/vegetables. As are

natural salts in fresh vegetables. That has nothing to do with processed sugars which

are often processed using animal products!

[NickB79]

148. The first step in weaning is introducing solid foods

You BEGIN the weaning process LONG before you actually start cutting back on breast milk. We started our daughter on cereals when she was 4 mo. old; we didn't reduce her milk intake at that time. How is that hard for you to understand? What do you think weaning entails, just one day stopping milk altogether and forcing the child to eat solids?

And, you keep referring to "newborns" throughout this thread. The article in the OP specifically discusses babies in the 3-6 MONTH range. Those are NOT newborns by any stretch of the imagination. At that point some of these "newborns" are crawling and sitting up on their own. Only you are implying that we should feed newborns solids, which the authors of the study do NOT say. Keep fighting that strawman of yours if you like, but I'm not that gullible.

With regard to the meme of "no new evidence presented", if you knew much about the scientific community you would know that you can gain new insights by simply re-evaluating older studies and compiling them into meta-studies. This approach can reveal new information that wouldn't be evident to the original researchers without requiring new experimental results.

As for the problems with additives and added salts and sugars, on this we agree. What that has to do with this study, though, I have no clue. The authors don't say specifically "Feed your child commercial baby food!". They use evidence from other nations, many of which don't even have widespread access to baby food, to bolster their recommendation to feed your baby solids at an earlier age. Any parent can do the same if they want to. I myself grew an organic vegetable garden this summer to make homemade pureed vegetables to feed to our daughter.

[defendandprotect]

156. Does it enter your mind that when you "wean" you withdraw breastmilk ... ???

I mean, re-read what you are posting --

How is it you don't get that babies can consume only a given quanity of food --

if you inroduce cereal, naturally the baby will consume less breastmilk!

Even as the child grows, that ratio wouldn't change -- more solids/less breastmilk.

We should also keep in mind the long chain of commercial messages which come from

"medical sources" which suggest that coffee is good for us -- "Toxic sludge is good

for you" died out before it got started -- on and on --

Remember avacados are bad for you because they contain "fat" -- !!??

But sugars and salts are pushed in every processed food product. And especially in

fast food restaurants. It's an underlying cause of illness in society -- and of course

is something to be especially considered in baby foods. Something which the baby

food industry supplied plenty of!

The main thrust is the same -- give up something natural and organic for something

grown with pesticides or produced in a chemical factory.

[NickB79]

181. A baby's caloric demands increase as he/she grows

Surely you don't think a newborn and a 4 mo. old require the same amount of calories per day, do you? THAT is how you can introduce cereals and baby foods without reducing breast milk as the first step in weaning. A newborn may require X amount of calories per day, provided entirely through breastmilk. At 4 mo. that same child may still need X calories PLUS another 100-200 calories per day that you can provide via solid foods.

My god, your ignorance on this subject makes me question if you even have children of your own.

[Nikia]

185. Most women can keep up with their babies increased caloric needs

I was at my lightest post baby weight when he was 6 months old and exclusively breast fed. Producing enough calories to breast feed is like producing enough calories to exercise. Some women exclusively breast feed twins.

[NickB79]

183. As for your disdain of medical experts

"We should also keep in mind the long chain of commercial messages which come from

"medical sources" which suggest that coffee is good for us"


Need I remind you that it was "medical sources" who previously suggested no solids before 6 months of age? Funny how their advice is fine when it agrees with your predetermined ideas, but somehow the same sources warp into purveyors of death and destruction when they don't.

In fact, if you disdain medical experts this current revision should be perfect for you, because they based a lot of their findings on the way parents raise their children in countries outside of the US and Europe, where there is less influence from baby food companies and parents still raise their babies with old tradtions like introducing solid foods at a younger age than 6 mo.

[Arkansas Granny]

85. Many inexperienced mothers rely on others for advice. They don't trust

their own judgments or instincts which leads them to ask their doctor or other health care professional. And judging from some of the hare-brained things I've seen some experienced mothers do with their babies, I'm not sure that every mother makes good decisions when left on her own.

[defendandprotect]

92. Exactly ... there has long been an effort to STOP breast feeding ... and they succeeded

for decades in doing so --

As I understand it, babies under 9 months to a year don't have the ability to

properly digest anything but breastmilk.

Also, wondering if mothers who breastfeed are also processing their own baby foods?

But -- imagine we have generations of babies who were fed soy milk!!! Yikes!!

[crim son]

8. My kids all got rice cereal at three months or so.

Otherwise they were ravenous every couple of hours and I wasn't interested in going without sleep for any longer than I had to. They're all fine, no food allergies, no nothing, and none of them are even vaguely overweight.

[rosesaylavee]

12. Same here.

Cereal added at 3 months as the baby is just hungrier at that point. Kid is now 21 and skinny as a rail/eats like a horse.

[LiberalFighter]

68. That would suggest the baby is telling the mother they need more than just milk.

I wonder if they have ever considered identifying the signals babies provide when they need other nourishment?

[fleabert]

77. i don't know of any studies, but the common sense approach I have found is

sitting up unaided
cessation of tongue thrust
interest in food

makes sense to me, and that's what we decided to follow. she's 5mo and is just getting interested/watching intently us eating. tongue thrust is beginning to cease, but not consistently. sitting up will probably be the last to arrive. These three things usually occur right around 6mo.

if she seems hungry, i just put her to the breast more often, it didn't make sense to me to have that be a deciding factor, as hunger patterns change day to day, and sometimes a growth spurt is coming and they simply need to nurse more. Demand/Supply equation of breastfeeding is a beautiful evolution of the mammalian feeding mechanism.

[crim son]

112. Laughing.

Exactly. "Scientists" are regularly changing their advice about everything from supplements to breastfeeding guidelines to the toxicity of commonly prescribed meds. A little common sense goes a long way.

[StarsInHerHair]

139. yeah I fed it to my puppy=same results, healthy, happy

nt

[FedUpWithIt All]

26. Hi Crim son. Exactly the same here.

Only excepting that my second daughter has a slight egg allergy. I got all kinds of pressure for feeding them solids so young but each kid just seemed ready between 3 and 4 months so i went with my gut.

:hi:

[crim son]

113. Nice to see you!

Your gut and mine are in agreement. :D

[Codeine]

110. My mom got me on to solid food as fast as she could.

She also toilet trained me very early. Even now she's mystified by three-year-olds in diapers. If you don't challenge kids constantly they don't develop.

[crim son]

114. That is absolutely the truth!

Kids are so much smarter, adaptive and vigorous than is generally accepted. Of course you don't want to "break" your kids, but you can do it by letting them stagnate as easily as by pushing them too hard.

[DainBramaged]

11. I'd like to know who paid for this 'science'?

what a cute logo........ I wonder if they make infant nutrion products.... why yes they do.........
http://www.nestlenutrition.com/en/nutrition_baby

Every baby is unique and develops at his/her own pace. The Nestlé Developmental Nutrition Plan (NDNP) identifies four major stages of development for babies from six months to around three years old. A baby entering a new stage of development will show external signs of growth, such as crawling, walking, increasing weight and height. At the same time, the baby will modify his/her eating habits and capabilities.

[Nikia]

17. Good point

They sent me nutritional guides that seemed to extol the virtues of formula and early baby food introduction.
I'm glad that my 2 year old hasn't seemed to suffer any problems from not following their advice.
Other than thinking it was healthy to breast feed exclusively for 6 months,I was at my lowest post pregnancy weight when my son was exclusively breast fed. I was probably producing more calories doing that than I have time to exercise working full time and being a mother.

[quakerboy]

23. I am guessing not them

seeing as they dont seem to recommend formula, but instead starting to feed them regular people foods as well as(not in place of) breast milk.

[Odin2005]

24. Good catch!

[Turborama]

38. See post #37. Terrible fumble, more like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4696055&mesg_id=4696264

[Odin2005]

52. DOH, my bad!

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Turborama]

37. Where's the link between Nestle and this study?

That link just takes you to Nestle's site which takes you to this...

Stage 1: Gentle first food

At around 6 months of age, breast milk may not be sufficient to cover a baby’s energetic and nutritional requirements. Furthermore, the baby is at a stage of development where he/she can start to swallow non-liquid food. At this time, food helps support optimal growth, brain development and the building of natural defences. Several behavioural changes may indicate the baby’s readiness for solid foods, including new capabilities and changes in eating behaviour.
http://www.nestlenutrition.com/en/nutrition_baby/Stage1.htm

[DainBramaged]

51. Hmmm, I simply asked a question, strange your dfense of them is

http://www.breastfeeding.com/advocacy/advocacy_boycott.html

In order to sell more of its infant formula in third world countries, Nestle would hire women with no special training and dress them up as nurses to give out free samples of Nestle formula. The free samples lasted long enough for the mother's breast milk to dry up from lack of use. Then mothers would be forced to purchase the formula but, being poor, they would often mix the formula with unsanitary water or 'stretch' the amount of formula by diluting it with more water than recommended. The result was that babies starved all over the Third World while Nestle made huge profits from this predatory marketing strategy.

Then
In 1977, a world-wide boycott was launched against the Nestle Corporation, which was found to be the most unethical of the several companies selling baby formula at the time. Consumers all across the world stopped purchasing Nestle products. The World Health Organization drafted the International Code on the Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes, which was signed by much of the world in the early '80's and finally by the United States in 1994.

Now
After a brief hiatus the Nestle boycott was relaunched in 1988 and continues to this day. A recent report called "Cracking the Code" outlines the many present-day violations of the W.H.O. code.

[Turborama]

61. Yes, Nestle have a bad history. However, it's got nothing to do with this study. Someone cited you

Stating that Nestle sponsored this study: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4696055&mesg_id=4696249

See how easily people can be persuaded?

I'm not defending Nestle, just making sure we keep our facts straight.

[DainBramaged]

80. Yet again, I asked a question, and once again you accused ME of conflating 'my' facts

I have no facts, only a question based on previously very bad behaviour on the part of Nestle, if people can't separate fact from questions, not my fault........

[Turborama]

83. Three people believed that Nestle funded this because of what you posted

One has since retracted.

I guess that's proof that whatever you posted seems to have been enough evidence for some.

Yes, you conflated Nestle with this study. Twice. And so far 3 people have fallen for it.

"strange your dfense of them is" = a failed slur. I just hate it when facts are twisted.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Turborama]

98. Nestlé Faces Facebook Crisis Over Greenpeace Rainforest Allegations

Posted by Turborama Sat Mar-20-10: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7963234

[hedgehog]

66. Excellent catch! The article should have been head-lined -

"Scientists caught taking money from major multinational to shill their baby foods"

[Turborama]

70. OMG Not another one. Please See Posts #37 & #67

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4696055&mesg_id=4696264

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4696055&mesg_id=4696468

You still have time to edit your post.

[harun]

72. Exactly the first question we should ask every time.

Doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean one needs more science on the issue.

[Turborama]

73. So far, it seems the study was from government funded institutions

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4696055&mesg_id=4696468

[ronnie624]

82. *

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

95. NESTLE strikes again --

thanks for the info-!!

:)

[Turborama]

97. LOL There is no info. Please read above and let's try and keep DU factual. n/t

[defendandprotect]

102. "FACT" ... "Three of four authors of study have taken money from baby food industry" ....

YOU should try reading the article!

While they didn't name the companies, certainly Nestle is notorious for

its deceptions.

[Turborama]

107. FACT They were funded by the university and the Medical Research Council = Gov. funding

You should have posted the next paragraph as well. Instead of cherry picking.

Fewtrell was unapologetic. Ideally, mothers would give their babies fresh food, including meat, for iron. "This is not an attempt to promote commercial weaning foods," she said. "We are a university and Medical Research Council-funded group." They had advised babyfood manufacturers because they were specialists in child nutrition, she said.

"Some organisations are all too happy to quote our data when it supports breastfeeding," she said. "They are choosy in what they will allow."

The Medical Research Council are funded by the British government.

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Factsfigures/index.htm

And you can contact the authors directly by email or phone if you have further questions about the funding: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4696055#4696472

Nestle are an awful company, but there is no evidence pointing towards them funding this apart from what brain damaged posted upthread, which proves nothing, if you look at it properly. FACT there is no link to Nestle. If there is I'd really like to hear about it because I don't like them either.

[laundry_queen]

178. You know how republicans

have all those unaffiliated special interest groups that fund raise and 'do studies' and lobby the gov't and pretend they aren't republican or partisan?? Nestle (and other formula companies, don't want to leave them out!) has those too. Just sayin'.

[Turborama]

180. Yes I do, not sure if the same thing happens in the UK though.

I know they have lobbyists but they also have a stronger http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information.aspx">freedom of information act than the US.

As I've said before, if there is a link between Nestle and this study I'd be interested to see it. I have had my issues with them about their use of palm oil for several years now and would love to see them exposed.

On edit, I just remembered that I posted a news story in November that reports on how the new Con/Dem coalition are going really libertarian on Britain's ass: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4613691">McDonald's and PepsiCo to help write UK health policy

[thereismore]

118. These fuckers make me sick. nt

[elocs]

13. Anyone who has read "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" knows its breastfeeding story:

http://www.helium.com/items/1139904-a-tree-grows-in-brooklyn

The story is full of memorable characters. My favorite is Aunt Sissy who, after giving birth to ten stillborn babies, adopts a child and then has a biological child of her own. Gussie persists in nursing to such an age that Sissy tries every remedy she can think of to wean him. Finally, she draws a frightful picture on her breast, summons him to the bedroom saying, "Gussie want a tittie?" The resulting fright sends Gussie under the bed and into the adult world of drinking from a cup. When I was a nursing mother, my friends and I would laugh at this method. That's the measure of a good book: one which stands up to decades of reading enjoyment and whose truths inspire in any time.

This is one of my favorite books, written by Betty Smith in 1943. My mother told me that at that time she was a teenager and her parents would not let her read the book because it was "dirty". It is a beautiful, poignant, and well-written book that is better than the movies made of it.

[kickysnana]

14. Not to worry they always reverse themselves every 5 years..

to make sure that new mothers and their mothers and grandmothers are not on the same page.

:shrug:

[ejpoeta]

15. they keep changing their minds!! i found out about exclusive feeding AFTER i had already been

giving my baby baby food. I had joined a peer counseling training class to be a peer counselor for WIC. Ashley seemed to turn out just fine. When I had my 3rd kid, now 15 months, WIC didn't give me baby food until about 6 months. I think I was already giving her cereal though. I think mothers know. My child was still hungry and I started giving her cereal.

[surrealAmerican]

16. One of the wonderful things you learn as a parent ...

... is that not only don't the doctors get to decide things like when your baby starts eating solids, you don't get to decide either! I tried; there is no getting a baby to eat the stuff until they're ready for it.

[joshcryer]

18. My newhpew lost weight after being born because his mother insisted on breast feeding.

Finally the doctors told her she had to give him over the counter stuff.

[fleabert]

56. it's too bad there wasn't a good lactation consultant, or that the dr. wasn't educated about BF'ing.

sounds like they both would have benefited from some help with breastfeeding, rather than formula feeding. My guess would be supply issues, latch issues, or feeding on a strict schedule was the problem. Women need help being successful breastfeeding if they want to, not blamed for wanting to do what's best for their child if it goes wrong. 'insisted'. your sister/sister in law deserves better from you honestly. I feel bad for her.

[CTyankee]

120. my daughter had a terrible time trying to breastfeed her first child.

She had plenty of help from a nurse specialist in helping new moms and they tried and tried. I told her that I had had the same problem with her brother, my first born, but that I was successful later with her and her younger sister. I told her she had done everything she could, including for a while augmenting the breast milk with formula just so she could continue to produce milk. She was crying and the baby was crying from hunger. I encouraged her to try again when her second was born and sure enough, she was fine with the breastfeeding, and also with her third. Breastfeeding failure is not the end of the world...

[fleabert]

133. that sounds like a ton of support, which is exactly what she needed.

I am not one of those that says breastfeed at all costs (including one's sanity) but too many women are not given the support, encouragement, and education needed to be successful with their own breastfeeding goals. shaming moms for wanting to breastfeed or formula feed is not the response i like to see. a great non-profit that hits the nail on the head is Best for Babes. www.bestforbabes.org.

congrats to you both for achieving your goals. :-) and I thank you, as a breastfeeding mom, for supporting your daughter in the way she needed it at the time she needed it.

[CTyankee]

164. Thanks. It just upset me so much to see her crying when it should have been a joyous time.

Everybody got thru it tho...

[joshcryer]

150. Yeah, that's basically what happened in this situation.

The baby was crying contentiously. There were several times we'd go to the ER thinking something was really wrong with him, until a nurse said that he needed to be on a higher nutritional diet. My mom told my sister-in-law this but she said everything was fine. My mom was unable to breast-feed, despite trying with all four of her boys. She went through the same thing four times, and recognized it instantly. It took 3 visits to the ER for them to realize.

[fleabert]

151. that's very sad. for both your mom and sister in law. (and the baby)

I hope that should she have another child, and wants to breastfeed, that she gets the help she needs before she gives birth. Again, I'll recommend Best For Babes- they are awesome. Finding an independent IBCLC lactation consultant is also hugely helpful. i used one when my baby was 3weeks old for latch problems.

http://americas.iblce.org/
for an International board certified lactation consultant - one who doesn't work at a hospital (conflict of interest sometimes, and they come to your house in the weeks following birth, not just the few days, or less, spent at the birth location- which is when and where real problems can surface) A good IBCLC would have been able to see the problem and recommend solutions (including formula if necessary) without a trip to the ER

www.bestforbabes.org
Help with breastfeeding solutions, advice, and support.

[joshcryer]

153. She had her tubes tied, we were fully supportive of her breast feeding.

Even her doctor was saying it was OK for her to continue breast feeding, it wasn't until a nurse told her that she'd seen this before and to ask the doctor about nutritional supplements, that she asked the doctor if that was a problem. (My mom is still annoyed that she didn't listen to her, but yeah.) Her doctor was still reluctant to put the baby on a formula. It took three emergency visits for the doctor to finally say that her breast milk was not enough in the babies diet.

I don't think a lactation consultant can cover all scenarios (especially in the event of an unhealthy mother), and I believe that if the doctor wasn't so primed to suggest breastfeeding despite the issues the mother was having, the baby wouldn't have had to be put on that extra fattening diet. I just hope his early undernourishment doesn't turn around and bite him when he's older.

Re: comments in this thread about feeding the kid rice cereal at 3 months; my mom did that with us, got us off the bottle really early, but yet again my sister in law isn't listening to her. It's sad, the whole point of gradmas is to help mothers with their kids, such advice is wasted.

[fleabert]

155. personally, i think three months is way too early for cereal, and rice has no nutritional value.

it's fortified, like all other baby foods, with iron. IMHO, it's worthless except as a filler.

doctors don't know anything about breastfeeding. they aren't told anything about it in medical school besides 'it's best' lactation consultants are trained in maternal health as it relates to BF.

my mother hasn't cared for a child in 37 years, i think her information is mostly outdated and seems to me she doesn't even remember most of it. she has no idea when she started me on solids. she thought i needed to drink a gallon of milk a day to produce milk for my baby.

because cows drink goat milk to make milk for their babies, right?

[joshcryer]

149. She is overweight and tried for three weeks.

The child lost an "uncomfortable amount of weight" according to her doctor, and made her quit breastfeeding. In fact they put him on a much higher nutritional diet for several months there so he could catch up.

[fleabert]

171. all i am saying is that with a good, ibclc lactation consultant, it never would have gotten that far

i know plenty that have walked in to the house, saw the mom and baby nursing for five minutes, and knew what the problem was. all would recommend formula supplementation or replacement if the baby's life was in danger, in a heartbeat. Sometimes supplementation and help with the issue at hand with breastfeeding is all that it takes to get the breastfeeding relationship back on track. sometimes, it can't be fixed.

Doctors know little to nothing about the mechanics and process of breastfeeding- usually NOTHING. it's horribly sad that it got that far in this situation, and I am so sorry it happened. I hope beyond measure that anyone else you meet that is about to have a baby you share this experience with them, coupled with the advice of consulting an expert in breastfeeding, aka: an independent, board certified lactation consultant. Maybe you can save a family some heartache and the breastfeeding dyad as well.

[Egnever]

58. That would be odd, except ALL babies lose some weight

after birth. Funny how that works.

This article is pure bunk. How in the world did humans survive ten thousand years without all of this "knowledge?"

[ronnie624]

84. How in the world did humans survive?

Possibly by crushing berries and grains and such, and feeding them to their infants in addition to breast milk?

[NickB79]

124. Ding ding ding

My grandmother would tell us stories about how they'd always just chew up food off their plate to give to the baby to eat. I was disgusted at the concept at the time, but now that I have a daughter of my own, we do the same thing and it's perfectly natural.

[Spoonman]

19. Rats Cause Cancer

in California..............:tinfoilhat:

[starroute]

20. I never was able to get my older son to eat baby gruel

Whatever guidelines I was following said to start rice cereal at 4 months -- so I dutifully drove both of us nuts for several months trying to maneuver that tiny baby spoon into his mouth and drop its payload before he could spit it out.

Eventually he started getting teeth -- though not till he was more than a year old -- and was ready to eat real food. But he never did accept the infant stuff.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

186. Maybe you should have gotten some "Gruel Helper!"

Dad's line about Hamburger Helper.

We call it Hangover Helper. Just to be silly.


:rofl:

[Atypical Liberal]

21. I don't see the hoopla.

By six months, both my kids wanted to try the foods that everyone else was eating.

[Odin2005]

25. This is corporate junk science.

[defendandprotect]

94. Agree ---

[NickB79]

126. It appears this was government-funded.

How is it corporate junk science then?

[JDPriestly]

27. My eldest got organic carrot juice (which I made by grating carrots

and twisting them up in a piece of cheesecloth) between 3 and 6 months closer to 6, as I recall. That was the instruction of my old-fashioned German doctor. Good advice I think. Gradually she ate the pureed vegetables and fruits that were in season plus some that were prepared for babies. This was in addition to nursing or after a time a bottle of milk and then a cup.

That was the old-fashioned way.

They also instructed me to give my baby camomile tea. Strange, huh?

[TheMadMonk]

28. Another missing element is the origin of the good old tonguie.

Tongue kissing was, once upon a time, for babies. (Still is in a number of cultures.) And in some societies the elderly. (Cringe away, it's true. "No I did it last time. It's YOUR turn to slip granny some tongue" :D)

Pre Magic Bullet(tm), mummies, aunties and other carers would chew solid food to a paste and push it into a baby's mouth with their tongue.

All the elements are there: Saliva exchange for hormonal bonding; contact between the second most touch sensitive set of organs we have; eye contact; biota/microflora exchange for immunological enhancement/training; necessary enzymatic predigestion of starches; and it would seem allergy supression.

There's the old saws: Eat a tablespoon/pound/bodyweigh in dirt before they're five. The second baby is not as fragile as the first. The most coddled babies make for the sickliest children.

A wipe and some mummy spit is the best prescription for a dropped dummy(pacifier). And mummy spit at any time trumps honey hands down for its soothing power.

I watch advertisments for anti-bacterial wipes, soaps, convenient purse sized liquid hand sanitisers, etc. with absolute horror. HEPA filtration instead of good old fresh air. Superbugs in one direction and reduced environmental exposure in the other. Hellooooo alleriges and sensitivities. Hellloooo Anna Felatrix.

[SoCalDem]

173. Our first got a fresh pacifer if he dropped it, the 2nd

got a quick rinse at the sink..

the 3rd..pick the cat hair off...wave it around a bit & hand it back :rofl:

kids are pretty tough, and germs are part of life.. you cannot protect them from everything

[David__77]

29. I only did formula, glad to say.

...

[Egnever]

60. Yeah, because stuff produced at the Nestle factory must be

superior than what your body is producing for the baby. That makes sense.

[Monarda]

30. um, this research was sponsored by baby food companies.

And was not based on any research.

When our children were young, doctors recommended introducing solids at five months, not six. Five months is when the babies start to need supplementation. The whole thing is phoney baloney.

[truthisfreedom]

32. I love how I'm staring at a Gerber ad on this page.

[Turborama]

39. No, it wans't

Give a link to prove your assertion.

It was based on research. Read the article to find out what research they did.

[Bluesbreaker]

40. Okay, here's a quote from the article

" . . . The paper acknowledges that three of the four authors "have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past three years"

Hey, no conflict there, just taking a little money from the companies that will benefit from the publication of this "research."

[Turborama]

41. And the next paragraph...

Fewtrell was unapologetic. Ideally, mothers would give their babies fresh food, including meat, for iron. "This is not an attempt to promote commercial weaning foods," she said. "We are a university and Medical Research Council-funded group." They had advised babyfood manufacturers because they were specialists in child nutrition, she said.

------------


Hey, no selective quoting there, just taking out a section of the article that out of context makes it look like they were paid by baby food companies to come to this conclusion.

[Monarda]

53. No new research

"Unicef pointed out that did not contain any new experimental data"

[Turborama]

62. "And was not based on any research" - Wrong. It was based on research.

"um, this research was sponsored by baby food companies"

Proof, please.

[shanti]

31. my DIL and i were just discussing this

she is still nursing my GD, who is 8 months old now. she's only been supplementing her since she was 6 months old though (GD, a preemie, is huge, btw). we discussed this a couple of months ago when they were JUST starting to wean her onto rice cereal and DIL told me her ped told her to hold off solids until 6 months. i mentioned that when my son was born (77), the recommendation was to start solids at 3-4 months. 6 months just seemed odd to me, but i didn't push the issue. interesting info, but don't think i'll send DIL the link - she probably wouldn't appreciate it!

[Wednesdays]

34. Unrec...study sponsored by Nestle Corporation, maker of BABY FOODS

See post #11.

I swear, more and more we're seeing "studies" come out that (surprise, surprise!) pushes some corporate agenda.
:banghead:

[Turborama]

36. You should try reading the article instead of going by what post #11 says

Patti Rundall, of the campaigning group Baby Milk Action, said moving to weaning at four months would be "a regrettable and backward step that is out of step with current scientific thinking".

She accused the paper's authors of taking funds from the babyfood industry. The paper acknowledges that three of the four authors "have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past three years".

Fewtrell was unapologetic. Ideally, mothers would give their babies fresh food, including meat, for iron. "This is not an attempt to promote commercial weaning foods," she said. "We are a university and Medical Research Council-funded group." They had advised babyfood manufacturers because they were specialists in child nutrition, she said.

"Some organisations are all too happy to quote our data when it supports breastfeeding," she said. "They are choosy in what they will allow."

----------

Are you into censorship?

You know that unrec'ing only moves it down the Greatest Page a notch? This only results in making it less visible and thereby possibly less DUers being able to join in the discussion.

[MilesColtrane]

35. Only if you're breastfeeding at Olive Garden.

The study was conducted by a crack team of DU Lounge denizens.

[boppers]

43. What is it about having children that turns rational adults into mindless zomboids?

I mean, *besides* the sleep deprivation, what is it about children that turns every new parent into a psychotic expert about everything? Is it the hormone dump? The sudden shift in lifestyle? The odor of baby poop?

Disclaimer: I'm about to become a godparent of twins, and I only have until July to figure this out.

[Turborama]

44. Way to insult the whole world: "every new parent into a psychotic expert about everything?"

Where did that come from?

[boppers]

45. Every parent without a science degree who is an expert on immunization.

Every parent without a psychology degree who is an expert on childhood development.
Every parent without a medical degree who is an expert on their child's health.

Does that make any sense to you?

Jenny McCarthy, a woman not particularly known for her academic acumen, has a child, and becomes a self-proclaimed expert on vaccination.

See my chain of thought?

[Turborama]

46. Well, let's put it this way.

Before there were psychology degrees, were parents "experts" on the development of their child?

Before there were medical degrees, were parents "experts" on their child's health?

Do you get why I put your questions in that perspective?


Instinct and intrinsic knowledge is my guess.



Jenny McCarthy isn't "every new parent".

[boppers]

47. Well, it's part of the shift to a Technocracy.

Reproduction capabilities no longer makes one an "expert" on the subject.

Many folks haven't gotten the memo, and insist that their knowledge is superior.

As far as your questions, they are thought provoking, but one only needs to look at childhood death and disease rates in the last 2000 years (and the resulting "parental wisdom") to learn that most parents are basically.... superstitious idiots.

Breeding does not make a person smart, or educated. What I was remarking on was the weird phenomenon where people who breed seem to think that they suddenly are. Maybe it's a child-protection-thing? A fear thing, where they result to odd beliefs based on a fear of loss?

[MBS]

48. that first comment is perfect! my views exactly.

But the British Medical Journal recommendation seems to me weirdly off base (food allergies, for instance, are higher among children who haven't been breast fed).

[madokie]

49. Back in the day when me and my brothers and sisters were born

all children or almost all children were breast fed.
I have a memory that allows me to remember back to within days of my birth and I remember suckling well and the comfort it gave me then.

[Marthe48]

50. When my kids were babies

Dr. had us introduce cereal at 3 wks, fruit at 4 wks, and vegs. at 6 wks. As teens and adults, both kids really have to watch their weight. One is a dietitician/vegetarian, and its still a challenge to stay at a healthy weight. She is breast-feeding her kids exclusively for 6 months--1st one is slender, new one is chubby, we'll see.

[Arkansas Granny]

89. My pediatrician had me introduce solid foods early also. Two or the four

have added a few extra pounds since they reached their 30's and 40's and they readily admit it is from poor diet and lack of exercise. My sister, OTOH, started one of hers early and one of them late (both by her Dr.'s advice) and both of her kids are obese and have been since their teens. I'm not really convinced that the age you start solid foods has as much impact on adult weight as some studies seem to indicate.

[cbdo2007]

54. Best plan - find a doctor that you really really like and do whatever they say.

[fleabert]

55. i'd like to see who funded the study...

my skeptic hackles are prickly.

(my baby is 5 mo, EBF, and is healthy as can be)

edited to remove redundant quote from article.

[Turborama]

64. From the article: "We are a university and Medical Research Council-funded group"

Well, the answer to your question would be to find out where the university and the MRC get their funding from..

[fleabert]

65. yep. I started on the BMJ article, just got interrupted by the baby...

my research is in bursts...i have my starting point though.

[Turborama]

67. The MRC is government funded

According to their website: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Factsfigures/index.htm

Checking out the university's site now: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ich/homepage

How old is he/she? We're in the middle of trying for the second time.

[fleabert]

76. she's 5mo :-)

and a champion nurser. just starting to show interest in what we are doing at the dinner table. i have to remind my husband that she reaches for and mouths a table lamp just as quickly as my spoon though. she's not ready yet ;-)

congrats on going for #2- we should be doing the same after her 1st bday. good times!

[Turborama]

78. Congratulations to you, too.

We're trying for the second time. The 1st try was unsuccessful but we've moved on and are nervously going through the last month of the 1st trimester.

Thanks for the congrats, though.

Thanks for the really interesting comments below, too. We'll be making baby food at home, when the time comes, and it'll be going into a blender, as well.

[fleabert]

57. a quote from the BMJ story...

Recently, after a detailed review commissioned by the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority’s panel on dietetic products, nutrition, and allergies concluded that for infants across the EU, complementary foods may be introduced safely between four to six months, and six months of exclusive breast feeding may not always provide sufficient nutrition for optimal growth and development.


NOTE: 'may not always provide...'

i hate that a journalists interpretation of a study is what gets the publicity.

this is old news. no new studies, just new review of old ones.

[Turborama]

69. This is how the authors' university is reporting it.

The fact they are publishing their contact details speaks volumes, IMO.

On their website: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ich/ich-news/Article12

IS 'BREAST ONLY' FOR FIRST SIX MONTHS BEST?

January 14 2011

Analysis: Six months of exclusive breast feeding: how good is the evidence?

Current guidance advising mothers in the UK to exclusively breast feed for the first six months of their baby's life is being questioned by child health experts on bmj.com today. The authors, led by Dr Mary Fewtrell, a consultant paediatrician at the UCL Institute of Child Health in London, have reviewed the evidence behind the current guidance and say the time is right to reappraise this recommendation. The researchers stress that while they fully back exclusive breast feeding early in life, they are concerned that exclusively doing so for six months and not introducing other foods may not always be in the child's best interests.

In 2001 the World Health Organisation (WHO) made its global recommendation that infants should be exclusively breast fed for the first six months. Many western countries did not follow this recommendation but in 2003 the UK health minister announced that the UK would comply. Fewtrell and colleagues support six months' exclusive breast feeding in less developed countries where access to clean water and safe weaning foods is limited and there is a high risk of infant death and illness. However they have reservations about whether the WHO's guidance about when to introduce other foods is right for the UK.

The WHO's recommendation that mothers should breast feed exclusively for six months is largely based on a systematic review undertaken in 2000 that considered existing research in this area, say the authors. This review concluded that exclusively breast fed babies have fewer infections and that the babies experience no growth problems. Dr Fewtrell argues that the evidence that breast milk alone provides sufficient nutrition for six months is questionable. She says there is a higher risk of iron deficiency anaemia if babies are exclusively breast fed and that there could also be a higher incidence of celiac disease and food allergies if children are not introduced to certain solid foods before six months.

The authors also fear that prolonged exclusive breast feeding may reduce the window for introducing new tastes, particularly bitter taste which may be important in the later acceptance of green leafy vegetables. This could encourage unhealthy eating in later life and lead to obesity, they say. Dr Fewtrell and colleagues conclude that it is time to review the UK's guidance in the light of the evidence that has built up on this issue over the last ten years.

The authors can be contacted via UCL Institute of Child Health & Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) press office Tel: [phone] or [phone] Email: [e-mail]

[fleabert]

75. the issue i have is the pratical application of this advice

it turns into giving babies rice cereal earlier than six months, because that is what is marketed as the best first food- it's fortified with iron- when in reality, rice has no real nutritional value for infants that young unless it is fortified.

breastfeeding mothers can up their intake of iron to help an exclusively breastfed baby get more iron rather than introduce rice cereal. I plan on doing so this month. (I eat a lot of iron rich food) I also am aware of the issue with iron, this is not new information.

now- if families had more nutritionally valuable food to offer their babies, i'd be all for it, but the reality is that better food is hard to find. what humans did in the beginning is give their kids pre-masticated food- gross- but it did just introduce them to exactly the diet that the mother was eating in a palatable way. I am a fan of sharing food as a means of introducing weaning, but i'll blend it thanks ;-)

for me, when she's sitting up (shows her motor skills have jumped a developmental level), showing interest in food (makes the job a lot easier to introduce new things), and her tongue thrust has stopped (shows me her digestive system is ready for solids -digestion begins in the mouth)- then I will start solids. And I'll give them at meals AFTER I breastfeed, so her main nutrition comes from breastmilk, and i don't have to worry about volume of solids in the beginning.

this is the method that makes the most sense, and doesn't rely on a date that may or may not apply to my child to introduce solids. That these three criteria almost always come together around 6 months is interesting.

[gkhouston]

63. I used a liquid vitamin supplement to ward against the possibility of anemia.

It was nasty smelling stuff, but my daughter drank it without any complaints when I put it in an ounce or two of breast milk.

I'm amused that it's suggested that peanuts allergies might be less if peanuts were used as weaning foods when we've been told not to introduce peanuts until after age 3 because introducing them too early might cause an allergy. :crazy:

[hedgehog]

71. All kinds of unanswered questions here - for example, is there something

different about Israeli peanuts? Are US peanuts a product of genetic modification, or do we use different pesticides, storage methods, etc? Are kids in Africa allergic to peanuts?

And that's just about the claim that feeding peanuts early eliminates the allergy, something that runs counter to current recommendations!

In the end, children tend to be pretty durable. They also tend to be unique. What works for your kid is what works for your kid.

[snooper2]

74. Makes sense for a number of reasons..

20,000 years ago, I'm sure our ancestors wanted to ween that baby off as soon as possible. Getting the baby to be somewhat self sufficient and pulling at the meat that was just killed.

When our daughter was 10 months old I wanted to see how she liked her steak. Grilled some nice t-bones for dinner, and one I cooked well and the rest medium rare. We put a piece of each in front of her and she would only eat the medium rare :P

Cuteness...


I always wondered what a day in the life of say a 2 year old would have been like 20-30K years ago...

[fleabert]

79. The Unicef response...

"The UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative supports continued research into improving infant health. However, any new research should then be considered as part of the whole body of evidence and any recommendations made should be based on the full evidence rather than on single papers.

It is unfortunate that the BMJ press office and the UK media have focused on a single piece of comment which has resulted in sensational headlines and risks misleading parents and damaging infant health.

The DH recommendation is that solid food be introduced at around six months. It is acknowledged that babies’ individual development varies widely and that some babies may be ready for solid food before and after this time. Since the introduction of this recommendation the number of babies experiencing the potentially harmful introduction to solid food before 4 months has reduced.

Health professionals should continue to support mothers with accurate information based on DH and WHO guidance, helping them to recognise the signs of when their baby may be ready to try new foods, while continuing to breastfeed."

http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/items/item_detail.asp?item=680

I concur.

[Turborama]

81. Here's the NHS response, published 10 minutes ago....

It's long and detailed so I'll just give the link: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/01January/Pages/call-for-breastfeeding-advice-to-be-re-examined.aspx


NHS Choices are always worth checking out when a story like this comes out from British media.

[fleabert]

135. a much more balanced response to the revised advice. wish it was what was headlined all day.

i also wish people knew that the minute you introduce anything other than breastmilk, it's called weaning, which is a long process that can take a year or longer. people hear 'weaning' and immediately think no more breastmilk, and that is bad. WHO rightfully recommends breastmilk for a min. of one year, preferably two and for however long after that is mutually beneficial for the dyad.

like i said earlier, this really isn't new news. iron deficiency and the other things mentioned were identified from these studies before, this is more about what the nationalized health care system pushes in Britian. that's clear to me now, but it certainly wasn't on first read of the article in the OP. my bad.

[fleabert]

137. la leche league's advice on when to begin weaning/introduce solids...awesome imho.

hard dates are crap. every baby is different developmentally.

[defendandprotect]

96. +1000% --

[Arkansas Granny]

86. The guidelines change all the time on when to introduce solid foods.

My daughter, granddaughter and I were talking about this just the other day. We had all been given different ages and schedules as far as when to start adding cereal and other solid foods to our infants diets, and none of them agreed.

[defendandprotect]

105. Babies digestive abilities don't change however ... probably slight differences from

child to child, but that was my understanding of why they began to reverse the

program of starting soldis even at 3 months.

But, this study is flawed in that 3 out of 4 of the authors have taken money

from the formula/baby food industry -- which is noted in the article --

and have also done "consulting" work for them in last three years!

[krabigirl]

90. Meh, why don't they all just admit that they have no clue, period.

[DainBramaged]

100. MERRY CHRISTMAS

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[defendandprotect]

101. "Three of the four authors 'have performed consultancy work and/or received funds ....

from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods'" --



Pro-breastfeeding groups were dismayed, however. Unicef pointed out that it did not contain any new experimental data and said the UK policy had been a success as greater numbers of mothers now delayed the introduction of solids until after four months. It added that most early foods "are not nutrient dense and do not provide quantities of iron and zinc".

Patti Rundall, of the campaigning group Baby Milk Action, said moving to weaning at four months would be "a regrettable and backward step that is out of step with current scientific thinking".

She accused the paper's authors of taking funds from the babyfood industry. The paper acknowledges that

three of the four authors "have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past three years".

Again -- as with the many others asking -- why the defense of this obviously flawed study?

And, yes, the evidence is there to link it to baby food companies AND more than like one

of them being the notorious Nestle!!

[Turborama]

104. They were funded by the British government. Here's the next paragraph...

Fewtrell was unapologetic. Ideally, mothers would give their babies fresh food, including meat, for iron. "This is not an attempt to promote commercial weaning foods," she said. "We are a university and Medical Research Council-funded group." They had advised babyfood manufacturers because they were specialists in child nutrition, she said.

"Some organisations are all too happy to quote our data when it supports breastfeeding," she said. "They are choosy in what they will allow."

The Medical Research Council are funded by the British government.

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Factsfigures/index.htm

And you can contact the authors directly by email or phone if you have further questions about the funding: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4696055#4696472

Nestle are an awful company, but there is no evidence pointing towards them funding this apart from what brain damaged posted upthread, which proves nothing, if you look at it properly.

[defendandprotect]

106. The study is flawed ... and the links are acknowledged ---

Even if you want to connect this to the British govenrment -- are you trying to

say that they don't have corporate corruption at highest levels of govenrment

these days?

She accused the paper's authors of taking funds from the babyfood industry. The paper acknowledges that
three of the four authors "have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past three years".

When "scientists" want money, they well understand who has it and what the chances are of

getting it . . . depending on one's attitudes and outcome of research.

Not unlike what has happened with our journalists vs edictors and corporate management!

[Turborama]

108. Look, someone upthread has made an allegation that Nestle funded this study

There is no evidence they have.

If there is I'd like to see it.

[defendandprotect]

123. Why would you expect a DIRECT link to Nestle ....?

But why also would you not suspect NESTLE to be involved ... ?

This study is an effort to disinform mothers --

Why would we suspect that anyone but dishonest people have been involved in it?

[NickB79]

128. So, let me get this straight

There's no evidence Nestle is involved, but there's also no evidence that they are NOT involved, so naturally we should suspect Nestle just to be safe, despite the fact that this press release basically re-affirms what mothers have been doing for THOUSANDS of years: feeding their children a more varied diet at an earlier age than we currently do.

"Why would we suspect that anyone but dishonest people have been involved in it?"

Conversely, why should we suspect that anyone but honest people have been involved in it? Since this appears to be a government-funded study, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove they are dishonest, not the other way around.

[defendandprotect]

136. Suspect whomever you want -- or not ....

But this is an effort to create FEAR in mothers if they do not feed solids to

their children before 6 months of age .... and it is -- let's remind ourselves --

'BASED ON NO NEW INFORMATION' --

Iow, it is an attack on the previously established wisdom that chldren this young

cannot process or properly digest solids. -- Again, "based on no new information" -- !!

That doesn't make you suspicious?

For thousands of years mothers breastfed ... what community sought to disconnect mothers,

babies and breastfeeding? Was it our medical industry? How did mothers/babies and

breastfeeding get disconnected over at least two or three generations in America?

Mothers are just getting back to breastfeeding -- this is an effort once again to disrupt it --

using FEAR and suggestions of "HARMFUL EFECTS." Again -- "with no new evidence."

This is medical science based on "no new evidence." How do you avoid that message?


:rofl:


It's also government funded study -- how reliable are our government agencies here in the US?

We often refer to the FDA as "Monsanto's FDA" -- what of our FCC permitting monopolies to

control our free press? What of the USDA and food safety? It would be naive not to question

what is going on in this country and every other country where sovereign governments are

being replaced by corporations!

And, it is also acknowledged that three of the four authors did consulting work for the

formula and baby food industry. How do you ignore that?


:eyes:

[Turborama]

145. This isn't an American study

I thought you might have realized that by now.

[defendandprotect]

158. We know that ... what's your point? That our government agencies are totally honest and reliable?

[Turborama]

161. We? Are you more than one person?

My point is that, after reading what you wrote, it appears you are looking at this one through the wrong lens.

[defendandprotect]

165. Might also be said "you are looking at this through the 'wrong lens'" ....

I'm one person -- but as you notice many of us are paying attention to this

thread --

And, many have commented on your strong interest in it -- that's why I used the "we."

[Turborama]

167. My "strong interest" is in keeping the facts straight. I hate dishonest discussion, wherever it is

One of the reasons I like DU so much is that it's somewhere that facts and honesty are greatly respected, and misinformation/disinformation and dishonesty are despised.

You and several others who are not paying attention thought because someone said "it must be Nestle" jumped on the bandwagon and went along for the ride. You keep cherry picking a quote from the article, but that's like what Brietbart did with Sherrod. Picked out of context it looks really bad. But when it's read in full it makes sense that they would have done some work advising baby food companies.

She accused the paper's authors of taking funds from the babyfood industry. The paper acknowledges that three of the four authors "have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past three years".

Fewtrell was unapologetic. Ideally, mothers would give their babies fresh food, including meat, for iron. "This is not an attempt to promote commercial weaning foods," she said. "We are a university and Medical Research Council-funded group." They had advised babyfood manufacturers because they were specialists in child nutrition, she said.

"Some organisations are all too happy to quote our data when it supports breastfeeding," she said. "They are choosy in what they will allow."

By the way, if we didn't have nutritional experts giving baby food makers advice and doing research for them, how could we trust what they were putting in the baby food?

You do not speak for all the people who have read this thread or even the people who I have discussed it with. You might like to think that you do because you're defending some weakly contrived link of this study to a corporation with a terrible history, but you don't.

You want to construct a conspiracy theory based on your assumptions and suppositions?

There's a forum designated for just that kind of thing, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

Go for it, knock yourself out.

[defendandprotect]

175. FACT: 3 of the 4 authors did "consulting work for formula/baby food industry" and $$ for research !

By the way, if we didn't have nutritional experts giving baby food makers advice and doing research for them, how could we trust what they were putting in the baby food?

We couldn't ever trust what they were "putting in the baby food" -- that's another fact!

That's history -- fact.


No one jumped on any bandwagon re Nestle -- Nestle comes trippingly off the tongue because

of their notorious background. I was making fun of Nestle.

If you want to knock yourself out trying to make sure that Nestle's reputation isn't ruined,

you're decades too late.


Finally, your quote belies your position -- I'll repeat it for you --

She accused the paper's authors of taking funds from the babyfood industry. The paper acknowledges that three of the four authors "have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past three years".

Fewtrell was unapologetic.

That is, the information was acknowledged -- not denied.


Nor did I say that I speak for "all the people who have read this thread" -- I said I was

aware of what they were saying to you. Something you seem to be highly sensistive about.

Of course, in America, we need to "construct conspiracy theories" because there are none.

This is, as we all know, "conspiracy-free America" -- !!!



:eyes:


:rofl:

[Turborama]

179. "We couldn't ever trust what they were "putting in the baby food" -- that's another fact" Really?

Are you saying that parents shouldn't be using baby food to feed their babies? Now, you know you can't come out with such serious assertions like that without something to back it up with, don't you?

I don't give fuck about Neslte's reputation. I do give a fuck about DU's reputation, though.



"Finally, your quote belies your position"? What does that even mean? My position is to try and keep this discussion honest.

You said the reason you spoke in the third person and said "we" is:

"as you notice many of us are paying attention to this

thread --

And, many have commented on your strong interest in it -- that's why I used the "we.""

So, yeah, you did say you were speaking for people who have been reading this thread - the "many of us", "paying attention", "your strong interest". What is that, anyway? An attempt at intimidation? :rofl: Seriously, you think everyone who is reading this thread must be 'on your side' because you went along with a falsified link between Nestle and the study?

You weren't making fun of them, you jumped on the bandwagon without looking at it properly:

defendandprotect (1000+ posts) Response to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4696055&mesg_id=4696088">Reply #11
95. NESTLE strikes again --

thanks for the info-!!

Why can't you just admit you were wrong?


"your quote belies your position"

And yet again you use that cherry picked quote. I'll repeat it again (with more clarity) just in case you didn't look at my post properly, either.

You and several others who are not paying attention thought that just because someone said "http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=102&topic_id=4696055&mesg_id=4696088">it must be Nestle" it had to be true, jumped on the bandwagon and went along for the ride.

You keep cherry picking a quote from the article, but that's like what Brietbart did with Sherrod. Picked out of context it looks really bad. But when it's read in full it makes sense that they would have done some work advising baby food companies.

She accused the paper's authors of taking funds from the babyfood industry. The paper acknowledges that three of the four authors "have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past three years".

Fewtrell was unapologetic. Ideally, mothers would give their babies fresh food, including meat, for iron. "This is not an attempt to promote commercial weaning foods," she said. "We are a university and Medical Research Council-funded group." They had advised babyfood manufacturers because they were specialists in child nutrition, she said.

"Some organisations are all too happy to quote our data when it supports breastfeeding," she said. "They are choosy in what they will allow."

By the way, if we didn't have nutritional experts giving baby food makers advice and doing research for them, how could we trust what they were putting in the baby food?

You keep missing the key phrase in the quote you keep using, "the paper acknowledges". Seems to me they are honest and open about everything they've done. They have even published their contact details if you want to take your conspiracy theories to them directly: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=102&topic_id=4696055&mesg_id=4696088

I'm not sensitive about it at all. Far from it, I'm actually enjoying trying to keep this discussion honest.

[Turborama]

144. "Why would we suspect that anyone but dishonest people have been involved in it?"

Because there's no evidence dishonest people have been involved in it.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

166. Why would we suspect that dishonest people have any involvement in government ....

something our Founders commented on it -- ?

Especially as the reason why we needed a Bill of Rights!

"As long as there are dishonest men among us .... " they said --

we needed a Bill of Rights.

Note also our Constitution ... to "defend and protect against all enemies --

domestic and foreign."

Note also comments by the Founders re conspiracy between presidents and vice presidents!

As for England -- remember Thatcher?

Remember how Thatcher and Reagan worked together to invade the Falklands which

was such a threat to us?

[Turborama]

168. This study has nothing to do with the founding fathers or Thatcher

Your desperate struggle to defend brain damaged's link to Nestle has been an utter failure. Come back to me when you've found something substantial and I'll start taking you seriously.

Honestly, if there is a link to Nestle I'd really like to see it, because I distrust them as much as the next person.

[defendandprotect]

169. Our discussion has to do with "dishonest" men and corrupt government and its agencies...

ESPECIALLY, the power of money to corrupt science --

and especially those who deny that dishonest men, corrupt government and corrupt

science exist.

Think you've made your goal sufficiently clear -- so I'll reply no further.

[Turborama]

170. I'm glad you finally understood what my "goal" was. I thought I'd made it quite clear from the start

Thanks for your input.

[Emillereid]

103. Junk Science!

[ehrnst]

115. Dear God. I breast fed exclusively for 6 months, and my kid's healthy as a horse.

He loves boobs, too.

[defendandprotect]

125. It's amazing the difference in children who are breast fed ... and how long the medical industry

worked to try to disconnected mothers and babies and breastfeeding!!

I didn't breast feed for various stupid reasons -- both of my kids have

back problems. Certainly, breastmilk plays an important and essential role

in the health of newborns -- brain development -- skeletal. Whatever.

They're so frightened of breastmilk, they seem to refrain from truly analyzing

it!! But, we do know that even 80 year olds benefit from the chemicals/

hormones passed on to them as newborns from their mother's milk!

Used to be a common saying that wisdom came with "Mother's milk" --

COLOSTRUM is the next step -- doctors have also interferred with newborns

getting that early milk which is only available for the first 24 hours --

and they've been again mother's allowing the newborn to suckle that milk and

that early ... "because the milk is yellow" -- !!!

Good for you for having the wisdom you had in this regard!!

:)

[ehrnst]

129. My son was enthusiastic - they put him in my arms, he sniffed the air

and latched. Partly it was selfish - I loved the connection, but that may be built in to the process.

However, I would never fault anyone for bottle feeding, or making a determination about when their child was ready. This culture does not make it easy, and you have to compromise somewhere.

[defendandprotect]

130. Lovely story --

Sadly, even though a strong feminist, I wasn't up on the info re babies/

breastfeeding cause I didn't expect to have children. AND, I had no idea

that if you're not breastfeeding they give you an injection to stop the flow!

So, to my shock, when I realized the error, that option was gone!

Imagine not telling women they were going to get this shot ... ??!!

But, agree with your overall outlook on this --

:)

[ehrnst]

116. self-delete

[CTyankee]

119. Am I too late? Is the popcorn all gone?

Dang, I got so excited when I saw this thread...our latest breastfeeding brouhaha...

[Turborama]

146. No, but the butter's getting low

Honestly, I had no idea this would create such a brouhaha.

[CTyankee]

160. Oh, Turborama....don't you know better?

There are some words that magnetize the atmosphere and this is one of them...:hi:

[Turborama]

162. LOL, I do now!

In fact, my wife is pregnant again, we lost our first one during the 1st trimester last year, and I'm really interested in everything to do with how to bring up my baby properly so I found this article quite interesting in that aspect.

Who'da thunk it'd create such a firestorm?

Magnetizing the atmosphere, I like that phrase in this context. Describes what's gone down perfectly. :hi:

[CTyankee]

163. Good luck to you both! Please let us know when your baby is born and how

everyone is doing!

[StarsInHerHair]

134. kids-actually babies start to get ricketts (however u spell it) I know someone

who worked in the dept of health before those letters got taken and they got another h. But one must take into account the euphoria that is triggered in the nursing mother, hormones fire in her brain that encourage her to continue breastfeeding.

http://www.healthboards.com/boards/archive/index.php/t-325037.html
"Hi
I breast fed both my daughters and loved it....a lot. Most women say they enjoy it and makes them feel good. So I always thought it was normal for women to ....hummmm....feel all warm and tingly and even get turned on by it. I actually had orgasms while breast feeding. I felt great!
Now I am feeling like a freak. Someone told me getting turned on, especially to the point of orgasm is sic.".....



http://www.babycenter.com/404_is-it-normal-to-feel-aroused-when-im-breastfeeding_8927.bc
"Is it normal to feel aroused when I'm breastfeeding?
I'm almost embarrassed to admit this, but sometimes when I feed my daughter, I feel a little aroused. I read this is normal. Is it?".....

[laundry_queen]

177. The current recommendation for breastfeeding babies is vit D drops

daily. I believe it's 400 IU daily. So long as they have that, they will not get rickets. So feeding solids earlier has nothing to do with rickets.

[Devil_Fish]

152. My daughter's digestive system was un-able to handle baby food before 6 mos.

We tried Baby's first peas at 5 mos. and it gave her mucous and blood in her stool. The doc told us to go back to straight breast feeding, and it cleared up. Tried again at 7 mos and everything is ok, but she is lactose intolerant. Cows milk and cheese gives her diarrhea.

She is now 17 mos. Eating everything including very limited dairy and still breast feeding.

I find it troubling how this article sights lack of evidence when talking about the WHO findings, but shows no contrary evidence to prove their point. I agree with previous posters, let mothers choose.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoCalDem]

172. Good grief..

more dueling "studies"..

Moms need to do whatever they feel comfortable with, and what suits their circumstances..

[Catherina]

174. What they mean to say is that it hurts corporate profit. n/t

[laundry_queen]

176. This frustrates the crap out of me

The recommendations have changed 3 times since I had my oldest (13 yrs old). For her I started solids at 4 months. She was SO NOT ready. Not only could she not figure out how to swallow it, she had instant constipation, on as little as a teaspoon of food a day. She couldn't tolerate any of the infant cereals - projectile vomiting and blood in her poop. So I finally just stopped feeding her solids, and offered her finger foods when she got enough teeth. She was tested for anemia and was fine. She was just a very sensitive kid. She couldn't eat any kind of baby or toddler cereals until she was 3 years old. She nursed until she was 4 (Ack, omg etc, whatever). She's totally fine today, no food allergies or intolerances or anything.
My 3 younger ones were all started right to finger foods when they had enough teeth (around 7-9 months). They seemed to tolerate the switch much, much better at that age than my oldest did at 4 months. All nursed past 2 yrs. None had anemia or anything like that.

I would like to see the review it its entirety. I'll admit I'm skeptical about certain things. I don't like the force feeding of 4 month olds, for instance, since many do not have the proper tongue-swallow coordination to be able to eat. I've always been skeptical of Nestle pushing their infant cereals, I wonder who funded this 'review'. Other things make perfect sense to me - I was actually told by a doctor that introducing them to allergens early was probably better than waiting, so long as you continued to feed the food on a regular basis to 'desensitize' them should they be prone to the allergy. So introducing certain things early accustom the body to the food and the body is less likely to reject it later, imo. Mine all had peanut butter and eggs once they wanted, usually around a year. I didn't restrict much if they showed interest. Worked for my 4 kids, although I know that is totally anecdotal.

It's no wonder parents these days find themselves panicking about food choices, since they make it seem so freakin dire should the parent not do the perfect thing. Most kids will not have any problems on either 'regimen'.

[fleabert]

184. and this puts my thought out there best...great response from my fave resource

http://tinyurl.com/4bdkqmw

best for babes dot org :-)
1 hand typing sorry...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

187. I'm allergic to soy.

Guess what I was fed as a baby -- you guessed it, soy formula -- Sobee!

I also have a ton of allergies. Pollen, cat hair, dog hair, mold, bla blah. Mom wouldn't breastfeed me cuz it was the Fifties.

I breastfed my child until she basically weaned herself when she was two and a half. Hubby told a psychiatrist during our divorce that I was "breastfeeding the baby after my milk dried up" like I was some kind of pervert getting a thrill from it.

The elderly woman psychiatrist told him he was full of shit in so many words. I think what she said was "That's not possible" but then he thinks he's an expert on females.

I'm a crunchy granola earth mother when it comes to breastfeeding. I am into heavy drugs when it comes to childbirth since I had a planned C section since the kid would not come out the usual way, and both of us would have died without a C section.

It floors me when people think that bottle feeding is more convenient. It's a major hassle.

:wtf: