What the hell is today's headline all about re breast not being best?

[milkmummy1]

Was shocked to read the headline today about breast not always being best and that delaying weaning being linked to health problems. Have breastfed both mine for a year and weaned at 6 months and am very, very pro.
My friend who is a breastfeeding counsellor said that this is just an 'opinion' funded by formula companies. Is this correct???

Just seen earlier message on this and am bit clearer.. I think.
thanks Tiktok and to the rest of you.

I heard that too, and there's this re early weaning on the BBC - talks about a BMJ article

Hi - I heard on Radio 4 from a midwife that this is not "research" more an opinion and it is from an organisation who receives sponsorship from Formula milk companies - babies will wean when they want to I think

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".

So they are completely impartial and independent?!

Having read the BMJ article (www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955.full) I think it's actually a useful contribution to the discussion. Key thrust is that in West where hygiene is good, introducing certain foods between 4 and 6mo may be good in terms of allergy reduction and have no demonstrable drawbacks in terms of illness. The original work cited shows that allergies are higher where solids are introduced before 4 months or after 6 months.

Importantly they don't recommend formula - they recommed exclusive breastfeeding and suggest introduction of solids (not formula) starting in the 4/5 months range.

This is a short review paper and it's wrong to call it an opinion piece - it's summarising relevant research and trying to come to a conclusion about what it means.

The authors are academics in infant nutrition and tbh I can see that it would be difficult not to be consulted by F companies in that field.

That said, as I'm not in the nutrition field myself I can't be sure hey haven't missed some studies out. But the reviewers who checked it prior to its publication should have been able to, that's why peer reviewed work is valuable.

HTH

p.s. I should add - BMJ allows responses and two are up giving counter-arguments. Being that a. late clamping of cord could solve iron deficiency issue; and b. the first response seems to weight the 'random controlled trials' used by the WHo (studies in which weaning at 4 vs 6 mo is determined randomly by scientist for volunteer mums, so that we know it's the weaning age that's key in the results vs other factors which affect mum's decisions) against the author's emphasis on Western data. Seem to be different priorities but both seem valid.

I may have to go and start reading the original studies just to have my own opinion!

And finally meant to say that the media coverage on this has been dire, both in terms of how the paper has been presented and the conclusions the headline writers have drawn. Really really irresponsible scaremongering.