to think that cunting Cow and Gate with their 'clever' marketing about babies 'needing iron' and funding 'research' have fucked up the last 10 years of improving and supporting breastfeeding?

[AtYourCervix]

1. 3 of the authors of that 'research' are funded by formula milk or baby food companies.

1. physiological third stage anyone?

The point is that most people are NOT genuinely interested enough to do that Itsjustafleshwound. People get their information in bitesize chunks - I'd like to bet many don't even read the whole newspaper article never mind read any further. The headlines will do untold damage.

well in sixteen years or so they'll be drinking stuff that's a lot more damaging than formula so really I think it's all a bit pointless.

bollocks wannabe.

and with that i bid you good night.

Untold damage! I just don't believe that. We are not all stupid. Women don't make decisions about how to feed/bring up their children based on ONE headline in the Daily Express.

But then surely the point is the source of the information - I wouldn't exactly go by the headlines of papers like the Daily Mail and Express - it isn't exactly responsible medical journalism - you may as well depend on the SUN headlines to get up to speed with current world affairs ...

If you honestly believe what you're doing is the best you can for your baby - how can you give a flying fuck about an article you disagree with?

It's a bit Lady MacBeth tbh.

well it isn't though, is it? as it is less than 20% of babies are exclusively bf until six months and yet 80% of babies do not suffer from alergies etc.

In fact iirc the figure is even less than that - yes bf is the preferred option but bf isn't the norm and we don't have a damaged population as a result.

People need to chill, really.

Anyone interested or affected will read the research and not just jump to action based on a headline they are queuing next to in a petrol station. I agree with Wannabe's point. I breastfed for as long as I could, ds still picks up bugs in crèche, the world was not saved and I don't presume to preach to anyone else what is best for their baby because how you feed is a choice. The information is widely available for people to take in and then choose to bf/ff. People are often unable to bf for a variety of reasons - nobody is being indoctrinated by evil formula companies. Maybe the formula feeding mothers who get demonised every day on sites like this deserve a break!

That's not how epidemiology works, wannabe. You don't get anything as simple as 'all b/f babies are free from allergies and all bottle fed babies have allergies'. It's about relative risk. And the weight of evidence and scientific consensus from multiple studies is clear - b/f babies are far less likely to develop allergies. One study with three out of four authors funded by formula/baby food manufacturers does not change that.

Did they actually blood test a sample of babies - some exclusive bf, mixed & ff? If there is a problem in some infants why not just give a vitamin/mineral solution? No reason to fill your kid with all the stuff that goes into ff imho.

dd was exclusively ff, and i have been a WOHM since she was 5 months old. My friend is a SAHM who extendedly bf. My dd has no allergies, hers have SERIOUS egg and milk allergies.

I don't honestly believe that it our feeding method that caused this. More that she had a history of allergies in her family, and we didn't.

It's a drip drip thing. Whilst mothers of a baby at weaning age may well research further, the general population will not. These kinds of headlines are very damaging in a period when the attitude of society as a whole towards breastfeeding is already very hostile.

no. the research has long since been called into question and as result many countries including scotland and ireland have amended their weaning guidelines back to between 4-6 months.

It is actually believed that the increase in alergies has far more to do with the fact that babies are not introduced to foods early enough rather than the influences of breastmilk.

Scotland haven't. Or if they have, no one told my HV!

"Whilst mothers of a baby at weaning age may well research further, the general population will not." But why should they even care? If you don't have a baby at weaning age then really, the research is irelevant to you, in the same way as I wouldn't be interested in researching information on prostate cancer or erectile disfunction - it's all very interesting to read in the press, but it's not relevant to my life, and so, as a parent of a child who is well past the age of weaning, this study is all very interesting, but it's not relevant to my life, so what does it matter what I think?

Tbh gaelicsheep - most people don't give a shit how or what you feed your baby. What people might object to is the wailing & screaming associated with your chosen method.

It's not the weaning research itself I'm on about. It's misleading headlines like the one I quoted "Mother's milk 'may do more harm than good'".

You mean the wailing and screaming while I heat up a bottle?

Cunting Aptimil do it too.

I buy those individual bottles for my son (SN) who doesn't eat very many foods. He sleeps like a newborn and if he doesn't have a lots of BM (not doing that any more at night thanks) or a bit of that milk he wakes properly at two am for the whole day. And he will do it. Nursery, no nap, the whole she-bang and will probably be wide-awake the following night too.

HOWEVER. Regarding "research"

I went to a course once when DS was first diagnosed and the lady running it said very authoritatively, "We ALL know that the studies have shown that there is a window for weaning between 3-4 months after which babies will not accept new tastes yet you are now being told to wait until six months to wean your babies. No wonder your (autistic) children won't eat"

What utter bollocks. BF babies have been exposed to new tastes and flavours since day one, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the companies who make food for babies want you to start buying their products as early as possible and for as long as possible.

Breastmilk contains iron!!!! How many more times is that falsehood about it not containing iron going to be trotted out today?! see here

Oh sorry, my son is 3 years 8 months and autistic, just to put my post into context.

But my HV told me that it turns to watery water after four months gaelicsheep

"it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the companies who make food for babies want you to start buying their products as early as possible and for as long as possible."

Don;t the companies that sell FOOD do the same thing? They want us to buy Heinz baked beans and Coca Cola. It is marketing. Why do people see this as some kind of sinister plot to poison your babies?

for personal reasons mine were exclusively bottle fed, (of course it was really due to the fact I was taken in by formula advertising .

I was made to feel incompetent, unloving, ignorant and almost all the mw tried to bully me into something I did not want to do. They were really shocked when I stood up to them, I don't think they are used to people saying no to them. Funnily enough the consultants and gps all supported me, just the mw, nct hags and other mothers who were unpleasant.

Formula babies thrive, breast babies thrive. The research was about weaning. If you have such a reaction, listen look to your own prejudices and weaknesses and consider whether they are in proportion.

For the record - I believe the advertising campaigns in the third world were underhand and reprehensible. If you have only dirty water and no way to sterilise breast is the only option.