To say something to this mum re. early weaning?

[Greywalls12]

Was at a baby class today, when one mum mentioned that she'd started giving her 15 week old baby rice.
No one said anything, but their were quite a few disapproving looks.

AIBU to say it has no nutritional value and she could actually be doing her child harm by weaning before 17 weeks?

Or is that incredibly rude and should stop being miss judgy pants?

I don't actually think she would care as she ignores most guidelines e.g. has baby in own room and puts on front to sleep etc.

Feeding is almost an aside - but not taking advise on sleeping and SIDS would raise more than an eyebrow!

Advice varies but first foods are introduced about 4 months often so not far off, it was 6 weeks when my brother was born, 3 months when I was born. If she was puréeing adult ready meals that would be a major concern but not baby rice

Remember that it used to be standard to start with rice, etc at twelve weeks. As the human race is not extinct, it's not that dangerous. So keep your beak out.

As always with threads like this, I'm surprised at how judgemental people can be about guidelines. They are guidelines, not rules that must be obeyed at all costs.

A friend of a friend is a consultant immunologist and claims that weaning advice will eventually be changed back to 4 months due to the increase in allergies (I don't personally know how true this is or if it's just the doctors opinion).

I haven't followed all advice/guidelines to the letter. I'd be gutted to think other mum's at baby group were gossiping about me because I gave baby rice 14 days before the recommended age .

My baby was also a front sleeper and I only wish I'd let him do it sooner to be honest.

My mum gave us baby rice in our bottles from 3months to fill us up so we'd stop eating 😂

I watched a lady give a 3-4 month old baby a bottle of red squash today. She then sat her up to wind her, then laid her back down to finish the bottle off. I didn't say anything but was 😮

@HollyGoLoudly1, apparently that’s current thinking. It’s what my step dil was told.

Oh and to answer the OP aibu - yes you are, massively. You want to confront and criticise another mum at baby group over her parenting choices? And you have to ask if that's rude and judgemental? Imagine if another mum questioned you about something you weren't following to the letter. I didn't breastfeed until 1 year, are you going to point out the WHO guidelines to me? Patronising, rude and not your place.

My DD was weaned at 12 weeks, as per the guidelines then. She is fine and no doubt this baby will be too.
Keep out.

@Alsohuman that's interesting, I wonder when it might be changed back. And I wonder how long after that until it's changed again! The only thing that will be the same is parents using the guidelines as a stick to beat other parents with, as if we don't all have enough on our plates

Am I missing something? Isn't guidance to start weaning a six months, not four?

Don’t say anything to her. If she was interested in listening to official guidelines she’d be doing it already.

Me and my brothers and sisters were weaned between 6-12 weeks and we’re FINE!... actually no we’re not, two of us have long-standing digestive issues. Maybe totally unrelated, maybe not, who knows.

Guidelines are that a Guide not the law. Mind your own bloody business. It’s her child and her choice how to parent, take your judgy pants off, I’m sure you’re far from perfect 🙄🙄

There have been many studies suggesting that Holly It is also the reason many other countries follow 16 weeks. Including most Scandinavian countries.

Why do so many people think 'milk isn't enough' then give them figs less calorie dense than breast milk or formula... Just give them more milk if they're hungry surely. YANBU to think the way you do OP but I doubt she'd listen

Foods not figs obviously

Thing is when you’re in the thick of the early years it all seems such a big deal and I probably would’ve been shocked to see this. I stuck to the rules rigidly-weaning not a day before 6m, no purées - but looking back a lot of it really did not matter. Don’t say anything.

Also wonderful for those of you that put baby to sleep on their front in the seventies and they survived, lots didn't. The SIDs rate has dropped by 80% since the bank to sleep advice started in 1992. We all know an eighty year old who eats badly and smokes but I wouldn't recommend it.

YANBU to think it, but don't say anything. It annoys me when people are in such a rush to get through each stage. I'm not talking about parents who have been medically advised to wean early btw.

@Myfoolishboatisleaning thanks, I might try to read a bit more about it. Allergies run in my family (some severe) so it would be good to find out more - too late for my DS now but I wouldn't definitely consider early weaning for any other babies if that's the case!

@Booboo66

My ds had CMPA and severe reflux and it got to the point where laying on the stomach didn’t even help.

He ended up sleeping in a battery powered swing that rocked all night and had white noise running.

It was either that, or nobody slept as he was in too much pain.

Sometimes as parents, we have to talk calculated risks

It was 12 weeks then 16 weeks and it changes so a parent just has to use common sense really.

17 weeks seems okay and baby rice does help hungry babies. And yes they do sleep longer when they don't feel the need to wake for meals.

@TheHandsOfNeilBuchanan it's not correct to say 'lots' of babies 'didn't survive' front sleeping. That's simply not true. At one point, all babies were put to sleep on their front and the vast, vast, vast majority did 'survive'.

There is a statistical link between front sleeping and an increased risk of SIDS, that we still don't fully understand, but overall that risk is still incredibly small. The back to sleep campaign has been hugely successful, but front sleeping was only part of it (loose covers, feet at the bottom, not overdressing baby, in parents room etc).

I put my baby on his front to sleep (this year btw, not in the 70s), so that he would, you know, actually sleep. I weighed up the increased risk vs him not thriving due to being unable to sleep more than 45 mins at a time. I wish I'd done it sooner.

Also SIDS is still not, any maybe never will be, 100% understood. No-one can claim a baby died from SIDS because of x, y or z.

Front/side sleeping is totally fine as long as there aren't any items in the cot and the sheets and sides/mattress are breatheable, and you have a movement monitor. Reflux is such a huge thing now mostly because of 'back to sleep'.