NHS guidelines to be the same as WHO guidelines

[SpiderRoaster]

This isn't to provoke a bun fight. I'm a huge supporter of parents making their own decisions when it comes to feeding (breast, formula or mixed) and have been a bf peer supporter for a number of years, helping online and in real life. I have supported friends, acquaintances and strangers with their own bf journey, be that 1 week or 2 years. I was previously under a different nickname but the security breach meant I changed my name completely - you normally found me on the feeding / weaning boards

The reason for this thread is to let you know of a petition I'd like you to read. It's aim is to change the wording / guidance provided by the NHS, to mirror that of the WHO.

In my opinion, this will support those that breastfeed their babies longer than the current "norm" and feel supported by government health advice when they chose to feed beyond 6 months.

Please read here for more information and decide if you support the petition to change the NHS guideline wording.

and

I've just had a look on the nhs website and it does mention bf after 6 months and the benefits of continuing bf along side weaning on to solids.

Of course it does, Havanna - the official guidance is fine by me!

"Breastfeeding is the healthiest way to feed your baby. Exclusive breastfeeding (giving your baby breast milk only) is recommended for around the first six months (26 weeks) of your baby's life. After that, giving your baby breast milk alongside other food will help them continue to grow and develop."

I'm still not seeing why we would want to change from that to this:

"Review of evidence has shown that, on a population basis, exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is the optimal way of feeding infants. Thereafter infants should receive complementary foods with continued breastfeeding up to 2 years of age or beyond."

I think the NHS version is clearer, doesn't say what 'infants should receive', and avoids the unclear word 'complementary', and as I said before, avoids an upper limit.

should receive sounds problematic. It suggests cruelty/neglect or ill health if the child is not BF until two. A very different tone to 'is recommended'.

Also, the second one is confusing as 'complimentary' is in the same sentence as 'beyond'. Thus, it could be read as food being only complimentary to breastfeeding for... when? It sounds like solids never go beyond 'complimentary'! Not that I think 99.9% of people would read it that way, but if we're talking clarity...

Spider, it's a good discussion topic, forgive me the cold water :) It's always important to consider how we can make messages clearer and more effective, but naturally, there are going to be different opinions on how it's done!

squiz, I agree with you. One difficulty is that WHO are not talking to mothers - they are talking to governments, health agencies, NGOs, all of whom have policies and strategies and who look to WHO for evidence and guidance. So you get a different, formal, tone to the statement. Anyone looking to change or instigate public health policies or legislation around employment or distribution of food aid needs to know what 'infants should receive'. This is why the '2 years and beyond' statement is written as it is - it really has nothing to do with what individual mothers 'should' be doing.

The NHS statement is directed at individual mothers/parents.

Obviously the result is a different form of words - and one form is just not right for the other situation.

Nothing to forgive you for tiktok your opinion is always valued by many here! including myself

It's an interesting point you make about not saying "should" but I still feel that mentioning 2 years is not a bad thing. The thing with it being the WHO guidelines, many responses (even from HC Professionals) say the WHO is covering developing countries and/ or doesn't really apply to developed counties. Obviously not the case, but I feel if the NHS mirrored the same wording then it would be a stronger message, that feeding beyond 6 months is normal.

Like cat said, people just remember the timeframe.

Really interesting about the survey wording too. I ebf for 6 months and introduced solids, which was a slow start. Yet I wouldn't be included in that 1%. I thought it was low, so that makes much more sense.

Interesting discussion (and lovely for it not to turn into a bunfight perhaps a first)

have to say. the nhs can keep their wording, but they do need to add "at least 2 years" and they need to make all of their literature talk about breastfeeding.

I like tiktok wording more. It gives more freedom to mum and baby. I think mentioning 2 years may make the whole idea of breastfeeding too daunting. what kept me going in the first very very hard weeks was exactly the fact that it was going to be a short-term sacrifice for six months (although I may continue beyond if things are going well). The new wording may also make women feel guilty if they stop before 2 years for example if they need to go back to work.

IMO At least would be worse than should. Linguistically, it sets up 2 years as the bare minimum - not 'the norm', not 'desirable' but the benchmark against which you are a failure. So if you end up with a

From looking at countries where people seem to habitually BF, there seems to be a 'less telling, more support' culture (e.g. no hair-tearing and debates about BFing + the odd bottle of expressed/formula when out for the day, but when she is just starting out, loads and loads of support). This is purely anecdotal and based on Spanish and Japanese friends who now live in the UK: both mentioned it's just low stress practical help.

I wonder whether, like with many many campaigns concerning health in the UK, all the funding goes into posters to tell women they should and feel guilty otherwise- but the actual day-to-day support is woefully low on NHS priorities and indeed the support is picked up by charities (good on them). What happens? Women feel a failure if they have to top-up once or twice at one end of the scale when they're doing a sterling job, and at the other end, women totally disengage after a bad experience (e.g. a MW ticking them off when their baby won't feed then walking away type thing).

This is just as I've experienced similar with other matters of public health/behaviour and cannot help noticing that with parenting there is a similar trend: £££ poster campaigns fostering pass/fail judgements BUT little training/support/grass roots help.

Sorry, that's not so much on BFing as a political rant.

Signed!

I agree they should stop talking about "extended breast feeding". The implication is that it's beyond what's considered normal and I think shouldn't be used in official guidelines. It's breast feeding, there's no need to refer to it as extended. However long it's done for it should be viewed as normal.

Yes ipswich - the idea of saying 'it's normal. However long you do it for, it's normal and healthy, go for it' seems so much psychologically healthier (both for those who thrive doing it and those who are daunted) than a 'hurdle' (6 months or 2 years) which could be daunting for some or be mistaken for a cut off exposing others to prejudice.
A 'hurdle' in many 'good health' situations means no one wins... you've either failed to jump it or are seen as excessive.

An analogy with adult nutrition would be my dislike of trotting out '5 (or 7) a day' ... less= failure, more= 'are you on a diet?' but no support on how to afford/cook it, bar from excellent charities and local groups. "Make most of your food fruit and veg, it's normal" food-plate type guidance plus of course looking at the price of fresh/frozen veg, basic cooking lessons, housing that has facilities for low income families ooops sorry rant sits more easily with me.

Signed!!

My DD is almost 6 months old and I've no intention of stopping! We love it too much, it's convenient (especially at night) and had too many health benefits to just cease doing it!

Happily, there is no mention as far as I know of 'extended' breastfeeding in any of the NHS materials or statements.

so we're back to "up to 2 years and beyond"
the lack of an older age being mentioned is still a stick that others choose to beat us with.

it would be better for lactation consultants (with a friendlier name!) ti be there on the wards, fir the midwivesand health visitors to have proper continuing professional training in breastfeeding and for hcps to stop treating formyla like it's the norm or preferable to human.milk.

Tiktok, I don't want to name and shame, it was very good training otherwise. She was giving her own opinion, ie it was not in the training and I did challenge it as did the lactation consultant