Age for Weaning - Parents Cannot Win

deisemum

Now the Health Professionals cannot agree on the age to start weaning parents just cannot win.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12180052

Weaning before six months 'may help breastfed babies'

Relying purely on breastfeeding for the first six months might not be best for babies, experts in the UK have warned.

In the British Medical Journal, the team said breastfed babies may benefit from being given solid food earlier.

Current advice suggests weaning should occur at six months, but the UCL team say it could happen as early as four.

They suggest later weaning may increase food allergies and iron deficiency levels, but other experts backed the existing guidance.

Ten years ago, the World Health Organization published global advice advocating babies be exclusively breastfed for six months.

The research team, led by Dr Mary Fewtrell a paediatrician from the University of London Institute of Child Health, said it supported the recommendation for developing countries, where access to clean water and safe weaning foods is limited, and there is a high risk of infant death and illness.

But they added: "Many western countries, including 65% of European member states and the US, elected not to follow this recommendation fully, if at all.

But in 2003, a health minister said the UK would comply.

Parents 'cannot win'

The WHO recommendation "rested largely" on a review of 16 studies, including seven from developing countries.

It concluded that babies just given breast milk for six months had fewer infections and experienced no growth problems.

But another review of 33 studies found "no compelling evidence" not to introduce solids at four to six months, the experts said.

Some research has also shown that six months of breastfeeding does not give babies all the nutrition they need.

A US 2007 study found there was an increased risk of anaemia compared with those introduced to solids at four to six months.

Swedish research also found that the incidence of early onset coeliac disease increased after a recommendation to delay introduction of gluten until age six months, but fell back after the recommendation reverted to four months.

Dr Alan Lucas, director of the Institute of Health, said: "The WHO recommendation is very sensible for developing countries.

"But in the UK, it's important we take a balanced look at the evidence."

Dr Fewtrell added: "When you look at the figures, there are a lot of babies being weaned before six months anyway - and that's probably the most important thing in terms of hard evidence."

'Inappropriate feeding'

But the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the National Childbirth Trust defended current advice.

And Janet Fyle, professional policy adviser at the Royal College of Midwives, said: "I really must challenge the suggestion that the UK should reconsider its current advice on exclusive breastfeeding for six months.

"I believe that this is a retrograde step and plays into the hands of the baby-food industry which has failed to support the six-month exclusive breastfeeding policy in the UK.

"There is evidence that some babies do die in developed countries from inappropriate young child feeding, such as the introduction of solid foods earlier before their swallowing mechanism is mature enough or they have fully developed the capability to cope with solid foods."

And a Department of Health spokeswoman said: "Breast milk provides all the nutrients a baby needs up to six months of age and we recommend exclusive breastfeeding for this time.

"Mothers who wish to introduce solids before six months should always talk to health professionals first."

The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition is to review infant feeding and is due to report later this year.

kelle

My babies were exclusively breastfed, and the first two were weaned at 4 months old as was the instruction at the time.

However, when no.3 was born the new instruction was weaning at 6mo. There was NO WAY my girl could have waited until then, she was a very hungry baby and she was stuck to the boob the whole time and very cranky - relieved by solids!

So I'm pleased to read that report!

upinthesky

iv heard of people feeding there baby's at 9 weeks! (there 6 months now and no health problems)
have they done studies to show this is bad?
my lad is 8 weeks he is satisfied with his bottles for now

How Strange

I'm soon to be a first time mum and I've done a lot of reading up on breastfeeding and its advantages for babies and really IM (inexperienced)O this seems completely contrary to everything I've read or been told about breastfeeding. I too would have to question the validity of the study and if the baby food industry had any part in the funding of it.

There seems to be so much hysteria around whether baby needs more iron, is getting enough nutirients, needs 'follow-on' formula that its no wonder mums are at their wits ends sometimes trying to do the best for their babies. I wonder how many of these myths have been created by the baby food industry. Afterall, a rise in the popularity of breastfeeding wouldn't suit their business model nor would a rise in the number of mums breastfeeding to 6 months so they have to constantly create this doubt that somehow once baby gets to a certain age that breast milk is not enough.

I honestly cannot see why exclusively breastfeeding up to 6 months (if thats the option you choose) is not be best thing for baby. It's completely natural and the milk has been made just for your baby by mum.

I remember reading an article advising against weaning before 6 months in the Irish Times over the past few months, here it is.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/0831/1224277901376.html

It refers to a study which found that early weaning can lead to obesity and Irish babies are weaned far too early.

I think I'll follow the recommendations of the WHO in deciding when to wean my little one and breastfeed exclusively for 6 months.

deisemum

kelle wrote: »

My babies were exclusively breastfed, and the first two were weaned at 4 months old as was the instruction at the time.

However, when no.3 was born the new instruction was weaning at 6mo. There was NO WAY my girl could have waited until then, she was a very hungry baby and she was stuck to the boob the whole time and very cranky - relieved by solids!

So I'm pleased to read that report!

Same here, my lads are teenagers now and were breastfed, the older one started solids at 12 weeks as this was the advice back then and the second lad tasted a few spoonfuls at 11 weeks but wasn't interested but started then when he was 4 months.

The older lad would not have lasted past 4 months.

I think this report will make things more confusing for parents when it comes to weaning, like which research do you follow.

I'm 46 and when I was a baby you were started on solids when baby was 2 weeks old as was the advice of the day. In my case I was born 6 weeks early and started solids when I was 6 weeks old which would have been around my due date.

deisemum

As I said my lads are now teenagers but one thing I clearly remember from my breastfeeding days when it came to iron as that's often touted around as being a worry if breastfeeding was that there is so much iron in formula compared to breastmilk but most of it is not digested in the same way as breastmilk so passes out in the nappy.

Breastmilk has a lot less iron but as nature intended it's absorbed better by the baby.

There may be more up to date info on this though.

Das Kitty

I don't think there can be a cut and dry number for weaning really. Some babies are ready earlier than others.

I think a lot of the guidelines are taken as gospel and promotes some people to start finger wagging at parents who don't follow them.

Only the parents know their own child well enough to know when they are ready IMO.

Das Kitty

Also with regard this report it doesn't say who funded the various studies, which is a huge factor in how to take the results.

How Strange

Das Kitty wrote: »

I think a lot of the guidelines are taken as gospel and promotes some people to start finger wagging at parents who don't follow them.

Only the parents know their own child well enough to know when they are ready IMO.

Yeah, I agree with this. Every baby is different and as parents you know best what your baby needs. What I don't agree with is the suggestion that breastfeeding is somehow nutrionally insufficient to meet the needs of a baby. I personally find that suggestion dubious and suspect. I'd have to question the motives of any survey which suggests just that.

Breastfeeding must be a huge thorn in the side of the baby food industry; its in their interests to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of nervous mums who only want the best for their babies.

Das Kitty

How Strange wrote: »

Yeah, I agree with this. Every baby is different and as parents you know best what your baby needs. What I don't agree with is the suggestion that breastfeeding is somehow nutrionally insufficient to meet the needs of a baby. I personally find that suggestion dubious and suspect. I'd have to question the motives of any survey which suggests just that.

Breastfeeding must be a huge thorn in the side of the baby food industry; its in their interests to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of nervous mums who only want the best for their babies.

I think a lot of the responsibility needs to be taken by the media as well though. They report medical stories without taking into account any consequences. For all we know the 33 studies above were done by babyfood companies. I would definitely be more inclined to trust the WHO guidelines tbh.

Kimono-Girl

my daughter was around the 4 month mark when we started weaning, we had to bottles were not enough for her,

she did fine with the food (pureed) , she is now 18 months old and she eats everything, no allergies or anything...

Butterflylove

Just been sent this by a friend:

Mothers are being warned that breastfeeding exclusively for six months may not be best for their babies and could put them at risk of allergies, food aversion and even obesity.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1347006/Breast-feeding-6-months-causes-allergies-warn-British-researchers.html#ixzz1B1sZ04qb

cynder

I have said that breast feeding is over rated (from my own personal experiences).

I think as das kitty said each mother knows their child and each child is different and their needs are different. You cant paint them all with the same brush.

upinthesky

if the mother is low in iron and not taking supplements does this mean the baby will not be getting enough iron if she is breastfeeding? if this is through maybe that's why they should be fed isn't that the reason we move to solids because of iron intake

lynski

Mothers are being warned that breastfeeding exclusively for six months may not be best for their babies and could put them at risk of allergies, food aversion and even obesity.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1347006/Breast-feeding-6-months-causes-allergies-warn-British-researchers.html#ixzz1B1sZ04qb

[/QUOTE]

Unbelieveable!! the damn Daily mail again!
This report has *already* been debunked - 3 of the 4 authors have worked for the baby food industry one for over a decade
http://info.babymilkaction.org/node/321
I wait for the newspapers to publish articles correcting their scaremongering - yeah that will happen!
Babies get all the iron they need from mothers unless she is iron deficient and even then the baby is more then likely getting all they need (that c&W ad with the huge milk cup is so disingenuous and irritating)

WHO breastfeeding recommendations under attack from industry-funded scientists.

Press release 14 January 2011

The BBC, the Guardian and other media are carrying stories about a new paper from four authors published in the British Medical Journal today. Three of the four authors of this study, Mary Fewtrell, Alan Lucas and David Wilson, receive funding from the baby food industry. Prof Lucas in particular plays a key role in advising the UK baby food industry, and has opposed the WHO recommendation for many years. In 2003 he went so far as to appear for the defence when one of the largest baby food companies, SMA Wyeth was successfully prosecuted for illegal advertising by Trading Standards.

Baby Milk Action expects this new study and the media coverage it is generating to be used by companies in their attempt to weaken national policies and legislation requiring complementary foods to be labelled for use from 6 months. In the UK, baby food companies are already labelling complementary foods for use from 4 months of age despite Government policy recommending 6 months exclusive breastfeeding or formula feeding.

When looking at this data the following points should be borne in mind:

The four authors are not attacking the recommendation that breastfeeding continue alongside complementary foods or the WHO recommendation of breastfeeding into the second year of life and beyond. Baby Milk Action is concerned about misreporting of the paper, with headlines such as, "Breastfeeding 'not always best'" or "Recommendation to breastfeed for 6 months challenged". Please post examples as comments to this articles, with links if possible.
This is not a report on new data - it is observational only.
WHO’s policy arose from a review of 3,000 studies on infant feeding.

***

Grrrr so annoying to see such obvious media led disinformation being published as fact

How Strange

Butterflylove wrote: »

Just been sent this by a friend:

Mothers are being warned that breastfeeding exclusively for six months may not be best for their babies and could put them at risk of allergies, food aversion and even obesity.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1347006/Breast-feeding-6-months-causes-allergies-warn-British-researchers.html#ixzz1B1sZ04qb

Wow, thats just incredible. So natures way of providing food for a baby is not as 'good' as food formulated in a lab by a commercial company.

Butterflylove

I know its crazy clearly going to scare first time moms into using formula when they had been set on BF

If I didnt know how good BF really is then that would have certainly put me off even giving it a go :mad:

Das Kitty

Yeah, pretty mad now.

Something really needs to be done about how medical studies are reported. :mad:

upinthesky

yes i think ireland has a very low rate in breastfeeding i dont even know anybody who has bf there baby in my area!
so these reports are even worse i didnt bf my baby im kinda sorry i didnt give it a go now after hearing this

Squiggler

Saw the same "study" covered in the Irish Independent this morning. If Breast Milk wasn't enough none of our grandparents would have survived past infancy. I find it so weird that scientists can decide that nature isn't sufficient.

It is good to see that most of the maternity hospitals are now supportive of mothers who want to breastfeed, even encouraging it. I hope that will continue and that scaremongering like this will not succeed.

upinthesky

Squiggler wrote: »

Saw the same "study" covered in the Irish Independent this morning. If Breast Milk wasn't enough none of our grandparents would have survived past infancy. I find it so weird that scientists can decide that nature isn't sufficient.

It is good to see that most of the maternity hospitals are now supportive of mothers who want to breastfeed, even encouraging it. I hope that will continue and that scaremongering like this will not succeed.

sorry but i dont think hospitals are very supportive not because the staff dont want to help but because there work load is so big i had a baby 9 weeks ago and not once was i asked to try breastfeeding they just asked was i bf or bottle feeding i said bottle feeding and that was it

Squiggler

lisar816 wrote: »

sorry but i dont think hospitals are very supportive not because the staff dont want to help but because there work load is so big i had a baby 9 weeks ago and not once was i asked to try breastfeeding they just asked was i bf or bottle feeding i said bottle feeding and that was it

The NMH has posters up everywhere about breastfeeding, including breastfeeding technique and during my one and only visit there (home birthing) the midwife asked if I intended to bf. When I said yes she mentioned their bf supports.

Maybe your hospital respects the decisions of the mother and you would have received bf support if you had said you were bf-ing, but they weren't going to try to encourage you to bf if you didn't want to, after all all the maternity information packs do contain information about both options.

deisemum

I had my second lad in my local hospital over 13 years ago and the breastfeeding support was very good, had my first lad in London where breastfeeding was more the norm compared to here.

At my ante-natal classes the midwife running the classes encouraged pregnant mums to come to one of their monthly breastfeeding mornings before they had their babies so they could be better informed and hear from breastfeeding mums as well as make contacts that they could phone once they had their babies if they needed some support or just someone to chat to. Very few bothered. You could even phone the post-natal ward at night if you rang into a problem and the midwives were very encouraging.

The maternity dept worked closely with the PHNs who also run their own breastfeeding support groups and had it worked out between them that there was a weekly breastfeeding support morning once a week.

cynder

Butterflylove wrote: »

I know its crazy clearly going to scare first time moms into using formula when they had been set on BF

If I didnt know how good BF really is then that would have certainly put me off even giving it a go :mad:

Did i read the article wrong as i took it to mean that if your breast feeding then its best to introduce solids at 4 months not 6. Its got nothing to do with formula milk.


Solids as in pre packed food (jar or packet) or home made baby foods which can be liquefied with breast milk. You would think that people who are into natural organic food such as breast milk would also make their own baby foods.


There are plenty of home made recipes on the net and even with a bit of common sense you could make a banana and breast milk smoothie for a 4 month old.

Anyone at any age can suffer from lack of iron, I did when i was 6 or 7 and i had been breast fed up until my first birthday. I don't see anywhere where it says that the lack of iron has been that bad that the babies need a blood transfusion. People will only be scared if they want to be scared any person with any common sense would not be scared into not breast feeding because of that article.


By the way how good is breast feeding?

Ive had 3 kids and 2 that weren't breast fed are way healthier than the breast fed one. I think a child is going to have health issues regardless of being breastfed or bottle fed. Its not some magic medicine.

deisemum

My 2 lads are 15 and 13, both haven't had to see their GP since they were toddlers.

They don't even know their GP and when I bumped into her in the supermarket a while back they hadn't a clue who she was.

They get the occasional cold but are generally very healthy. The older lads has only had antibiotics twice and the younger lad once when they were toddlers.

cynder

deisemum wrote: »

My 2 lads are 15 and 13, both haven't had to see their GP since they were toddlers.

.

There lucky, i had my tonsils out at 15, i must have had over well over 30 antibiotics at that point just for my tonsils, since then ive had about 7 antibiotics for throat problems. Chest infections/asthma as and adult you can add more antibiotics and steroids. Possible gall bladder problems. But thats really it.

Im 30 now and i cant stand Italian/Indian/chinese (oriental) food i cant eat garlic or other strong foods (peppers, chili peppers, loads of different spices) i have plenty of food aversions. I can only eat plain bland food.

Yet my brother who was also breast fed but only till 6 months has none of the above problems and he is 31 and has only seen a doctor 4 or 5 times in the last 21 years, he smokes like a trooper and eats anything and everything except cucumber.

Thats why i think its down to the person and i dont think breast feeding or bottle feeding has anything to do with it.

I must say breast feeding its great for 1 on 1 time with baby and makes you all warm inside.

planetX

Does anyone exclusively bf for 6 months anyway? I ignored the advice on solids, as my breastfed baby was so hungry by about 3.5 months that I started him on solids, I still breastfed him for the next year though.
I don't believe anything I read about iron - I think there's a lot more to do with metabolism than diet. On paper I should be very low in iron - vegetarian for 20 years, I don't eat much of the classic iron rich foods. My iron levels have always been above average. It's individual, I hate these lazy studies.

lynski

The problem with the articles over the last few days is the focus on degrading breastfeeding. There is no mention of bottlefed infacts in the 'study', and there is also no mention of how good or not breastfeeding is. It is to do with the introduction of solids, but lazy journos and industry interests are making it a breast V bottle debate.

Great point by point rebuttal of the nonsense in the papers today and yesterday.

http://www.analyticalarmadillo.co.uk/2011/01/starting-solids-facts-behind-todays.html

A small section of it.

Before I get on to the paper that fuelled today's news - let's start with a few facts we should bear in mind:
The paper states 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".
The recommendation not to wean until six months has substantially cut the numbers of women who introduced solids before four months – from 85% in 2000 to 51% in 2005. This is massively significant in terms of health implications as the evidence against introducing solids before 17 weeks is extremely strong.
The recommendation not to wean until six months is also going to have impacted significantly on the profits of baby food companies. As more parents follow the guideline for six months, less are buying baby food from four to six months...
Why are non breastfed infants not discussed? When are they supposed to introduce solids? I guess this is far less likely to be of interest because most formula fed infants receive solids pre 6 months. Whilst the DOH guidelines state 6 months for both breast and formula fed, there is no big focus on "6 months exclusive formula feeding" and so profits from this group are likely to remain far more stable. Ironically as the non breastfed infant's gut matures more slowly than that of a breastfed infant due to lack of human growth factors, and as non breastfed infants are not exposed to new flavours via breastmilk, starting solids is likely to be just as significant (if not more) to non breasted infants and an area that really should receive more focus in terms of health impact.

implausible

These reports are infuriating to read for a few reasons:

- the reporters take the most "sellable" sentence in the whole report and make it into a sensationalist headline

- there is an anti-breastfeeding bias out there and the media know that anything that supports this will sell

- the baby-food companies pick on one "fact" and repeat it ad nauseam i.e. that breastmilk is iron deficient. They ignore the fact that the iron in breastmilk is easily absorbed, whereas the extra iron in formula is mostly excreted as it's not in an easily absorbable form

- does anyone seriously think that human milk isn't good for human babies? It's like saying that calves shouldn't be fed cows' milk!

While I have respect for mother who chose not to breastfeed their babies for whatever reason, reports that put future mothers off considering breastfeeding their babies drive me crazy!

iguana

How Strange wrote: »

Breastfeeding must be a huge thorn in the side of the baby food industry; its in their interests to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of nervous mums who only want the best for their babies.

It's a bit like the Cow & Gate; Great Iron Count. In the advert they show how much cow's milk a baby would need to receive his daily dose of iron, compared to one little cup of their follow on milk. Yet one thing cow's milk is not known for is it's high iron count. If you mashed a little broccoli, beef gravy and grated cow's liver into some potato and fed that to the baby it would get more than enough iron after a few spoonfuls because liver and green veg are full of iron and iron absorption enhancers. The ad may be technically correct but it's as sensible as a crisp company telling us to eat 20 bags of crisps a day in order to get our RDA of vitamin C.

dan_d

Hmm.I'm not a parent, but I'd like to be in the near future.

I have friends who are midwives so I hear a lot of the breastfeeding debate.

Personally, I can't help thinking that women have been having babies for millennia and have managed just fine without the help of (often male!!!;)) experts and reports. Life has continued, and babies have grown up.The world goes on.

Why can't people just do what feels natural to them, ie, chose breastfeeding/bottles depending what they're happy with...why do they need to be told what to do by "experts"???(or is my view too simplistic?). Every baby and by extension, every person, is different...all the reports in the world don't change that.

How much of this is hysteria??

pickarooney

I think parents have a better chance of 'winning' by listening to their children than to some twat in a lab-coat. It would be a strange and sad world where one single rule applied to how to treat each child.

BengaLover

Mine were all weaned age 2.
It should be up to the parent who is more aware of the childs needs and wants.
As long as its supplemented by a good solid food diet I dont see the problem..