Mothers now advised to bf for 2 yrs - in Scotland.

[kiskidee]

Except for that bit, the rest of the article makes my teeth itch.

scratch scratch

and just when I was so proud of MN being namechecked on R4 re the HomeFront matleave thing

I too await Carrie's response

The best way to interpret guidelines is to think of them as a call to governments, employers and society at large, not as an instruction to individual mothers. That in fact is what they are - the WHO does not issue information to ordinary people, anyway, but acts as a research and advisory resource for health departments.

WHO reports that there are measurable health benefits (everywhere) for breastfeeding to two years and beyond - the 'ceiling' of two years merely reflects the fact there is robust research on breastfeeding to two years but beyond that age we don't have much data.

The question that results is, 'how can we remove institutional barriers that prevent women exercising this choice to breastfeed for as long as they wish, given that bf to 2 years and beyond is a Good Thing for our nation's health?' So we look at maternity leave, employment practices, what nurseries can do, hospitals and the health service, how HCPs can address training deficits, legal protection against harrassment of bf women, ways to prevent unethical marketing of formula and so on....all of which are outside the control of individual women.

Oh dear. I do hope Carrie was mis-quoted.

Hi all, Carrie's away this week, but I'm sure she'll get back to you on her return.

Thanks, Abby

The WHO have based their new child growth standards on their global feeding recommendations. The excl-bf-for-6-months-and-then-alongside-complementary-foods-up-to at least two-years recommendations. (clue - there's a hint in the word 'global' there)

In answer to the question;
"Are the new standards just for children in developing countries?"

They say (and I paraphrase here a touch)
"no they are bloomin well not"

I don't think that leaves much room for interpretation, really, Carrie.

is that my verylittlecarrot back? hope so.

forget about the 'told to' bit, no doubt written by a 22-year-old Australian male sub editor desperate to leave the office and go out to enjoy the many refreshing delights that edinburgh has to offer. it's irrelevant, tbh.

hullo. dipping my toes in again.

yay!

oh dear - comments taken out of context?

It's in this morning's Herald, too. So if it is a misquote it is being proliferated very widely.

I am not condoning Carrie she ought to know better.

I do agree that "telling" women to bf for 2 years is likely to put some off from even trying and it is important to emphasise that any bf is better than none. Better to improve the bf rates to 6 months first.

The WHO guidelines are confusing, I just had a look on their website and I read a document that states that exclusive bf to 6 months is optimal but that some babies may need complementary foods from 4 months and that ideally bf should continue until 12 months and up to 2 years if living in a country with high rates of infection. It had been my understanding that the WHO adivised exclusive bf to 6 months for all babies and bf alongside solids for 2 years so I can understand why people might be a tad confused!

"People" might be a tad confused.

But Carrie has a wealth of information at her fingertips. She should not have been adding to the confusion.

Still, she's on hols for a week, so better to let her explain when she comes back rather than make lots of assumptions.

Agree re the sub, Aitch - bet you have that spot on.

I was 'advised' by my MW when I had my 2YO DS to exclusively BF for 4/6months and then BF aswell as giving food. Then again I live in Scotland. I thought this was standard practice, sorry I havent looked at the whole thread am quite confused .

Could someone explain what the problem is with this?

why don't you just read the thread, it's all in there...

reethie, the WHO web-based documentation is difficult to negotiate. They don't always update, and older stuff remains hidden away, but pops up sometimes when you are searching for something else.

The current info is in the Global Strategy, which is an international document, for gloabl application.

It calls on governments and health services to set in place a number of systems, and I quote from just a small part of it:

"33. With these considerations in mind, the global strategy includes as a priority for all governments the achievement of the following additional operational targets:

? to develop, implement, monitor and evaluate a comprehensive policy on infant and young child feeding, in the context of national policies and programmes for nutrition, child and reproductive health, and poverty reduction;

? to ensure that the health and other relevant sectors protect, promote and support exclusive breastfeeding for six months and continued breastfeeding up to two years of age or beyond, while providing women access to the support they require ? in the family, community and workplace ? to achieve this goal

(Note the inclusion of the word 'all' which I have bolded here)

There may well be other documentation to support the application of the strategy in specific contexts. It's obvious that the risks of serious infection or under-nutrition would be much less in the developed world, but breastmilk remains a nutritious drink wherever it is given, and a loving part of a close mother-child relationship. In addition, longer-term bf like this offers protection against breast cancer for the mother, so it has this benefit as well.

Hi all - Carrie's run off to Ibiza. I'd actually be very surprised if those were her actual words but will make sure she sees it when she's back next week so she can give her side of the story.

Hi Justine

Thanks for that.

Benefit of the doubt and all that, especially if it was brother of careless Aussie sub wot wrote the article.

thumbwitch-have a look at Kathy Dettwyler's research on the anthropological age of weaning. She extrapolates on a whole range of measures, comparing humans to other mammals. "nature's" age of weaning comes out at between 3 and 7, depending on which measure used. I think all other mammals nurse their young until their second set of teeth appear, so that's be age 7 ish. As tiktok said, they're not called milk teeth for nothing

BT-I just spat my water all over my monitor. That's take some explaining at work

i'd give serious consideration, Justine, in only doing emailed answers to questions. but you know all that stuff.

rather shockingly, someone i know wrote a diary on BLW for a parenting mag and emailed it to them, and Despite It Being In Black And White the mag still added lots of rubbish about her being petrified of choking etc.

They emailed her with the new copy, she objected strongly and... it went straight into the mag under a photo of her and her baby. imagine doing that do a DIARY, fgs. arseholes.

Message withdrawn

I also think telling women to bf for two years might put them off, espeicially if they are coming from the perspective of seeing bottle feeing as the norm, and not knowing anyone who bf.

I gave myself a mimimum of 6 weeks to bf. Anything longer then that I couldn't even consider as I found it so difficult and painful. As it happened, once the six weeks had passed, I was able to carry on much longer.

my friends said to me 'if you get through the first six weeks, you'll be set' and actually at the time i didn't realise that was a physiological as well as an emotional truth. that was just the wisdom of women who'd been there and done it, iykwim?

personally i think that if we were all properly supported and targeted for, say, the first 12 weeks, it could make such a difference.