Its official - only breastmilk for 6 months

[GRMUM]

I hesitate to post this after messing up on the special needs thread!But here goes...
guardian.co.uk/medecine/story/0,11381,953912,00.html

sorry but the links aren't working for me today. There isn't a lot of support for women who want to breastfeed here in Greece but milk only (whatever type) for 6 months has been the norm for many years here.

I think Keepingmum's point about the government adopting the WHO recommendation being not altogether coincidental to the extension of maternity leave to 26 weeks is very pertinent. But even 26 weeks paid leave (with 18 of them at a taxed £100/week) will leave many people unable to take as much as the first 6 months of a baby's life off work (especially as most people will have at least a week or 2 off before the birth). What's really needed is a package of maternity pay which is more in line with that that offered elesewhere in Europe so people can actually afford to stay at home with their babies for longer.

I've just looked at the WHO document outlining the guidelines which the Government has just adopted (at www.who.org). The research it refers to mainly relates to Honduras and it suggests that exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months confers benefits mainly because children who are breastfed are less susceptible to gastro-intestinal infections. It was less clear whether or not Honduran children who were exclusively breastfed to six months experienced growth retardation or iron deficiency. This was the case in one trial, but this may have been because their mothers were iron deficient in the first place. In other words, while this is an important public health issue, in developing countries and here, I'm not sure what its implications are for me. I have an 18-week old daughter and started her on baby rice at the weekend. I have been feeding with breast and bottle up to now. Now I don't know what to do and I don't think this research gives me enough information to make a decision.

You can get more info at

www.babyfriendly.org.uk

In the archives section you will see research about reduced respiratory infections in babies B/F for 6 months amonst other information.

I'm amazed and a little depressed by the discussion so far. Everyone seems to see the new recommendations as good news, pro-mum etc. But they aren't - at least not for all of us. Fine if you actually want (and can) breastfeed exclusively for 6 months, and (even more important) have kids for whom that's right. It was definitely not right for our first dd, who was fine on bf for 2 months but then just stopped gaining weight. She was always a v slow and inefficient feeder (45 min feeds, no posseting) so clearly just couldn't hoover enough milk out of me. It was a very worrying and upsetting time until our HV (who is great) suggested we start her on baby rice (this was at 3 months) while continuing to breastfeed. She instantly started to pile the weight on and never looked back. She was fine on bf, but exclusive bf was just not right for her (second dd is a different kettle of fish btw: doing fine at 4 months).

According to the new guidelines I did the wrong thing (twice over, actually, bc I weaned her at 5 months bc I was going back to work) and I know I would have felt guilty and stressed about it.

Now JanZ would tell me it is all about support. 3 cheers for her understanding attitude but sadly that is NOT how the guidelines are written. They say we SHOULD bf exclusively for 6 months. That is not supportive and enabling it is prescriptive. In fact it's the same as saying we SHOULD NOT introduce solids before 6 months. If it were about support and enabling then the wording would be that we MAY bf exclusively for up to 6 months - which be enough for you all to fend off your HVs. Why is it phrased so directively?

The other thing that concerns me is that there really isn't any good evidence that this is the right thing to do. The babyfriendly.org.uk research isn't enough: that's just one paper (and it talks about predominant breastfeeding - doesn't sound the same as exclusive breastfeeding) and you can find a single research paper that will support almost any view (eg plenty about how working mums damage their children). The proper way to do it is with a review of all papers, which the WHO did. It found reasonably good evidence that you won't harm your child from exclusive bf: so all you others out there are OK. But as OldieMum says, it struggles to find any positive benefits. OldieMum: I think you're free to do what you think feels right for the baby and for you without worrying that you'll do harm either way.

We seem to have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire here.

janedec from what I have gathered from my experience with two babies is that the current guidelines recommend weaning some time between 4 and 6 months however HV's seem to push the four month thing, I don't see that saying "we MAY bf exclusively for up to 6 months" would make any difference to this as the guidelines are already saying that we "we MAY bf exclusively for up to 6 months". I don't think anyone is coming down on any mother who didn't make it to six months (myself included) it would just be nice to go to the HV and be told that it was best to leave them to six months rather than be told to get the babyrice out the minute they hit 16 weeks.

I agree with JanZ that support is the key but would like to add that information and support do not always come from the same sources and hope that those providing the support (HV's/midwives etc) and taking heed of this new information.

Sorry that doesn't read quite right the guidelines are already saying "we MAY bf exclusively for up to 6 months" but the HVs are saying he's 16 weeks get the babyrice down him. I am one of the mothers who didn't make it to six months either time (don't think that came across clearly either).

I didn't make it to 6 months without solids with either of mine but will try to do so with number three.

I have been surprised at the number of press articles interpreting the new guidelines as an attack on working mothers. I would hope that advice from the Department of Health is based purely and simply on what is deemed to be best for the health of the baby. Whether or not the conditions of maternity leave should be improved is surely a separate issue.

another thought for any politicians who might be reading this in search of good tips is to inroduce breastfeeding hours at work. Some other countries give you paid time off every day for breastfeeding - I get an hour a day - or I would if I could be bothered trying to claim it but that's another story!
Moroccan law entitles all women to an hour a day for the first year and if you work in a large company they should even provide a special room for you at work. I'm not sure but I think this might come from the Muslim perspective that encourages bf.
Anyway, what better way to show you really do support breastfeeding?

Absolutely morocco - I believe part of the DoH report says something about expressing milk being really rather easy to which my reaction was "says who?" The ideal solution would be for bf mums to be able to bring their (stationery) babies to work until they can be weaned, coupled with some kind of flexible working hours when the baby is crawling but still bf.

All I can say is that when nature was inventing human physiology, she did not, unfortunately, do it with the needs of working mothers in mind. researchers are not bullying anyone when a new fact comes to light. If it suits the gastrointestinal tract (and other systems) best to wait until around 6 months before weaning (and I've seen several good papers supporting this, not online but in the uni library) then its tough cheese. Nobody is uncovering these facts as a personal affront to working mothers, they just exist. To refrain from informing us for fear of upsetting working mothers would be the real crime.

Babies won't be damaged by early weaning - it's just oprimal, for several health reasons, not to.

Bells2 - In fairness (because she got a lot of stick here on the state vs private education thread) I actually thought the article in the Guardain yesterday by Janice Turner (aka badmamma) - www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,954706,00.html - was quite good. If that's the article you're refering to (and I haven't seen any others which go beyond reporting the government announcement and it being welcomed by organisations like the NCT), then I certainly didn't see it as an attack on working mothers, but more as pointing out the anomoly of the government on one hand preaching the "breast is best" creed, but on the other not providing/encouraging an environment conducive to it. I doubt it's any coincidence that where maternity pay/leave packages are the best in Europe (generally the Scandinavian countries) the rates of breastfeeding are highest too.

I hadn't seen that one GillW.

As someone who only gets only the 6 week statutory minimum maternity package I am an enthusiastic supporter of better conditions. I have however seen / heard a couple of media comments saying that the DoH advice is some sort of attack on working mothers because maternity pay is only for 6 weeks at 90%, thus making exclusive breast feeding for 6 months difficult to achieve (and Liam Fox made similar remarks, albeit about the difficulty some women have in b/f). I agree that the government should now think about statutory maternity pay in light of these new guidelines but my point was just that as Droile says, the job of the DoH is surely only to be concerned with what is best for the babies, rather than broader issues.

It's not an edict, it's a recommendation isn't it??

Exactly Soupdragon.

Interestingly, I think breastfeeding rates are considerably higher in Australia than the UK despite the fact that along with the US, it is the only industrialised country not to offer any statutory provision whatsoever for paid maternity leave.

French exclusive breastfeeding rates are lower than the UK but they get 16 weeks fully paid maternity leave compared to only 6 in the UK. I did read the Guardian article and disagreed with it. The government's advice is not an attack on working mothers it is just what medical research suggests is the best advice for babies health. That's the only issue the department of health should concern itself with.

JaneDec - there was an article in last night's Evening Standard which sums up exactly how you (and I) feel about this subject - its well worth a read as its very amusing!

Can I just highlight here that this information is not new, it is now being finally promoted.
It was not until I had my 4th baby that I actually made it to 6 months. That was because I had the confidence to do it. I also returned to work and was fortunate that I do not have any problems expressing milk.
The information is advising mums that breastmilk is the ideal food for babies until the age of 6 months. Some women will be able to achieve that, others will not. As has been said many times before, we all chose to do what suits our own circumstances. This information is not intended to make mothers fel guilty. Just as information about the risks of smoking are not intended to make people feel guilty.
My dd (9yrs) has now gone to school with a packed lunch containing a chocolate spread sandwich, milky bar pudding, a packet of crisps,a fruit shoot and a satsuma ( which she will not eat). Do I feel guilty, no I bl**dy well don't

That evening standard article which LucieB mentioned is here if anyone's interested.

Thats not the article - am trying to find it now!
It was in last night's edition...

Good article however I don't see why the author is making life so difficult by resticting what she eats. I lived on chocolate

Personally, I thought it was a bit of a silly article. You don't have to rest, not exercise or eat different foods or do any of those lifestyle restricting things while breastfeeding. What rubbish. I drank wine, ate whatever I liked - curry, grapes - everything. Went all over - shopping, lunch, dinner, Tate Modern. Just took my baby and my boobs. And maybe I was lucky, but for me, expressing was quite easy. Boring, yes, but easy. And of course breastmilk is best for babies, it just is. It may not be everyone's choice, but do we really want the DoH to lie to us about our baby's health just to make us feel better about our choices? I'm not saying this from a position of superiority. I mixed fed - he had a bottle at three days old, then very little at first, more later but still b/f for 13months. I expressed at work but also used formula when at work. And I introduced solids (pointlessly) at around 4months. The whole point is that the six month benchmark is that yes, breastmilk is the best milk, healthwise, for babies, but also - vitally - that you can stick with milk (inc formula) and don't need to introduce solids until then. And that hardly makes anyone's life less convenient surely? I was so sad when I introduced solids, not becaue of any emotional thing about b/f but because it was less convenient, much more messy and meant that going out for the day involved a lot more preparation. Surely this part of the recommendation offers us more freedom for six months, not less?

Excellent points Aloha - nice to see you back

Thank you Mears. So sorry to hear about your work troubles. They are just utter idiots if they don't realise what a national treasure you are. Bugger them. Write a book with all your wonderful sensible advice. It would sell out and you could be as rich as Gina Ford.

Thankyou so much ( she says blushing..) - I am in a much better frame of mind. Need to drag myself off of here though and do some serious assignment writing. I do enjoy your posts

I agree with you Aloha. A major attraction of b/f for me was the simplicity of it all (despite the fact that I had a hellish time getting feeding established first time around and after 8 weeks my baby still hadn't regained his birth weight). What on earth is she on about with the no caffeine/ no chocolate/ no wine business???