To think that baby food companies should be banned from advertising food as 4months+?

[babynamelol]

I was having a discussion about weaning with a family member who works in a profession that works with families. The issue came up that there is conflicting advice between what baby food companies are telling parents and what the official guidelines say. She mentioned that many families who do no have the official information or education to research official guidelines and the benefits of waiting until 6 months use this packaging as a guideline of when to feed their babies and assume that it must be true because it is written by a big company. When she tries to advise them to wait until as close to 6 months as possible they then say, well why does it say I can feed it to my baby at 4 months then? Aibu that these notoriously money grabbing companies are simply using this to make more money, as the earlier people feed their babies then the more products they buy? Why aren't they being made to follow official guidelines?

It's not about taking away parents choice for when they choose to wean, It's about making sure parents are aware of current guidelines so they can make an informed decision. People shouldn't be having to make choices based on advertising alone when the companies can potentially get monetary gain from the decision. If you want to follow the guidelines, fine. If you want to wean before the guidelines, also fine.

There is good evidence that weaning prior to 4 months can be harmful. Once you get beyond that, it’s more difficult to say for sure what the ideal timing is. There’s lots of emerging evidence that weaning before 6 months, in particular introducing all common allergens, is a good thing.

Baby food manufacturers don't put these guidelines on jars for the good of our health- they do it to make money.
The younger the age the more baby food they can sell.

It's simple economics
If they thought they could get away with a 12 week label they probably would.

I understand that although the guidelines in UK say 6 months ,it is not the same across Europe.Because we are part of the glorious single market, UK manufacturers cannot be subject to different standards than other EU producers.Suck on that remainers!

Dd 10 was weaned at 4 months as was the norm then, however once I had DS now 5:11, it had changed to 6 months. I weaned him at 5 months as he was quite hungry all the time, and really milk did not seem to satisfy him. He eats like a dustbin now. I suppose it depends on the child, sometimes they need to be weaned earlier.

I think dd could have been left for couple of months as she was it particularly hungry

Because the 6 months weaning advice was a huge mistake and one of the reasons so many children have allergies now. The most current research supports weaning at 4 months and advice is going back to 4 months but it’s takong a while to filter down, which is what it was for many years anyway!!!
I waited till 6 months with my first who had eczema. Huge mistake. I believe it contributed to his
Multiple food allergies as he took in food allergens via his skin before his gut did - I was told all this by an allergist.
I was advised to wean Any children after that at 4 months. It’s ridiculous that people are still spouting this 6 months nonsense!

What a load of rubbish. 'Parents who don't have the correct information go by the jars' even the poorest families I work with have a leaflet given to them and a midwife.
Browsing the shelves of the local supermarket but no idea of when to wean? Ok.
Also they ARE suitable from 4 months.

I did a bit of research into this earlier this year when my MIL suggested I wean my (big) DS at 4 months. In the need I waited until around 5 1/2 months.

From what I could deduce, the advice used to be 4 months but people would start earlier which is really too young so they shifted it to 6 months and that way if people start at 4 months it’s fine (rather than say 2 months ).

Medically it’s fine to wean from 4 months but I wanted to wait until DS could sit up a bit as that felt safer.

Don’t forget peanut advice has also changed and is now encouraged (carefully) before 1 yr!

As others have said, the official guidelines are out of date and not supported by the most recent research. The country I live have amended the 6 months guidelines back to 4 months in line with up to date evidence. I believe lots of countries never adopted the 6 month guidelines because they weren't convinced by the science behind it.

Mine born early 2000's were both 4 months as was the advice then. Youngest was actually a bit earlier as he was big and hungry. Both are now 6 foot.

I love these sorts of threads. Everyone gets so self righteous. Wean your baby you when you want to. I decided to follow the guidelines, others don't. Who cares.

I had a baby in the Netherlands where they say the newest research is 4 months is best for weaning, so I went with their advice. Probably not worth getting too upset about.

Being ready for solids isn't an overnight event, it's a process. Some will be ready earlier than others. The six month guideline is a guideline only, not law, and increasingly under scrutiny

Mine are in their 20's and were weaned at 4 months,
Weird that some people were told to do it later back then. Hv were very involved with the you ger one so im sure they must have told me when to do it.

I fed my baby around 5 months, it's parents choice/ babies needs. Guidelines are just that.

YANBU.

There will always be some fucking twat that decides to do it behind the mothers back though.

"Oohh we gave your DD a rusk/chocolate/porridge today, even though you didnt say we could"

"Arn't we cool rebel grandparents, go us"

I had to wean my baby at 4 months due to severe reflux. So it's not always best to wait till 6 months..?

I have weaned 2 children at 16 weeks under advice from the gp and health visitor. Both had severe reflux and would refuse milk but be very hungry, they loved food and ate anything and everything they were given! They are adventurous in their food tastes and will try anything! my 2 other children were fine with milk and had no reflux issues so were weaned at 6 months. It was very hard to wean them and they were very fussy and still are. I don't think it has anything to do being weaned later but more to do with 6 months was still too early for them. All children are different and all need to be weaned when ready. The jars saying suitable from 4 months are suitable to feed from that age and therefore are right to advertise as such. Some foods shouldn't be introduced before 6 months so at least parents who have to wean earlier than guidelines know what is safe!

The 6-month guideline came into effect in 2003, so 17 years ago. My teenagers were born in the late 1999s and early 2000s, so we obeyed the 4-month guideline that was advised.

My son was born in 2001 and he’s only just turned 16 so I think your maths is a bit out

And in 1998 when I had my first the advice was 6 months

Has it occurred to you that the reason advice changes all the time is that medical research is a continuing process?

But then those weaned at 3-4 months in the 70s and 80s are now in their 30s and 40s.

What is the health issue that affects an entire generation of people of that age which was caused by weaning at 3-4 months?

Bodicea is right. The advice in France has recently changed back to 4 months from 6 months because of the allergen problem. I was advised to wean mine at 4 months here, rather than waiting until later.

It's possible that due to new research the NHS advice will be to wean at 4 months (or begin introducing allergens alongside milk from 4 months) but there's a big study that is currently happening that will be looking at that issue specifically www.eatstudy.co.uk

Snowkids Yes, my maths was out. I corrected what I wrote a couple of posts under my statement statement. The NHS guidance of 6 months was introduced in 2003, so that is only 14 years that that advice has been in existence.. Before that, it was four months for years. My children were born 1997, 1999 and 2001, and they were weaned at four months, as per the guidelines at the time. They are teenagers now, and one is 20. They are not in their 30s and 40s!