Exclusive BF for 6 months may be harmful

[Longtalljosie]

Oh bloody hell

The problem is it's only one study but will be seized on even if later it's put into context.

The other problem is the way it implies that breastfeeding is in some way a problem.

The third problem is the possibility they might turn out to be right, because I loved BLW and want to do it again...

I can hear certain members of my wider family from here...

I haven't read the whole thread but did hear the Radio 2 debate at lunchtime.

One comment made me think - the WHO recommends 6 months ex bf as in some developing countries the sanitation and nutrition is not great and could be damaging to babies under 6m.
No expert but that made sense to me.

However, I think this sort of 'research review' is not helpful. Every child is different - some grab for food around 4 months, some don't. DD was 6months when she had her first food but that was because she had no interest until then. Had she been grabbing at my plate at 5 months, I would probably have been led by her.

The fact they are giving the impression that bf alone will not give your baby enough iron is misleading and falls right into the camp of the infant 'iron-enriched' formula manufacturers.(I hate those adverts).

DD ebf till 6 mos followed by slow BLW.
DS eff till 4 months followed by purées.

I read the BLW book by Gill Rapley and found what she said about weaning happening around 8mos until 20th C interesting.

To be honest, I've given up caring somewhat.

My vote is to make the weaning section in books should read "you know your own baby, make your own bloody mind up as we're unable to".

It just shows me that people should use their own common sense, know their own DC and follow their own instincts. I agree, every DC is different and it really is a 'nanny state' if people have to follow official guidelines to the letter.

Still not able to read thread, study or anything else. Blardy children eh? But I'm feeling pretty annoyed, frustrated and profoundly depressed by the way this study is being reported. Why oh why does the media do everything in its power to undermine breastfeeding/wannabe breastfeeding mothers?

The "company-funded" thing is tricky. Academics are under enormous pressure to get any funding they can - to keep their jobs, essentially - especially when government funding is being cut. So many academics will have undertaken consultancy for private companies of all kinds during their careers - it doesn't necessarily invalidate their conclusions in general.

The problem here is this is a very small speculative review, over-spun by the university press office (I suspect) and badly, badly misreported by the media - the Independent one is particularly poor - this is fundamentally a problem of bad science reporting by journalists whose agenda is to create a stir.

Agreed, Habbibu. It's easy to slate UCL for taking some money from whoever for funding, but who else IS funding research?

I'll happily slate their press office, though, Moth! Although they are also under stupid pressure to get things in the news. That's why we get all those crappy news articles over formulae for best day of the year, or most crumbly biscuit, and then people are up in arms, saying, "and our taxes are paying for this?" - no, they're not - some company has handed over some cash and the academic has done 20 mins work, so that they have time and money to do their Real Job. Crappy, but true.

I've just emailed PM to ask them to consider how badly this has been covered in the press if they're looking at this story, and if MN were to have a "line" on this, then I think that's what it should be - poor science reporting does no-one but newspaper proprietors any good - it's not just this topic, but so many others that get so badly handled and have the potential to be very dangerous.

Thanks. I was actually looking for a way to post a contradiction to the comment that bm has no iron, but it seems they've selected emails from elsewhere. I think the woman who posted could do with reading that information sheet though. She's supposed to be supporting b/f fgs!!!

Well I have a 19 wk old and I honestly cannot imagine attemting to get food into him, I really can't. And he's no more hungry than he was last month. Yes he wakes a lot in the night, but mostly not with hunger tbh, it's the 4month sleep regression.

I will wait untill he show the signs the NHS recommend waiting for, sitting up, pincergrip and loss of tongue thrust. I won't be looking at how old he is, he might be over 6 months, he might be under. As far as I can see if he can pick up some food from my plate and put it in his mouth and swallow some, he's probably ready to eat!

God, this is depressing.

Some of the posts here are depressing too - especially from people who have introduced solids at 6 mths or later and now think they have done harm :(

No one will ever come up with the right answers for every nutritional issue. All that can be done, if we are looking for public health guidance, is to use the research available at the time, chuck out the stuff that is poorly done, and assess the rest. That's what WHO did with the statement in 2001 which was reiterated in 2009,when the systematic review which led to '6 mths excl bf' came up for reassessment.

The paper in question here suggests another look at the research including studies which WHO did not look at. Perhaps these studies were not good quality, perhaps they looked at issues WHO were not concerned with, perhaps they came out later.

It's not a systematic review (a very specific, long-lasting, labour intensive academic process). It's not new research. It's a fairly cautious, fairly restrained discussion document which calls for further thought and in particular, further thought about the UK public health guidance.

The study itself is not funded by industry, according to what I heard on the radio.

University College Hospital's press office has gone bananas over this, because they know anything to do with infant feeding, especially something that can be spun to challenge 'orthodoxy', can bring them column inches. 99.99 per cent of academic papers never get one word anywhere near the press or mainstream media - but something like this is guarenteed huge coverage.

Nothing needs to change. Even within the UK guidance (published 2003) and the WHO statement (2001), allowance has been made for babies to be responded to individually - with the caveat that solids before 17 weeks has been shown to have a number of risks, in all settings. Which is why it was strange to hear Clare Byam Cook on TV talking about 3 mths or 12 pounds as a weaning point - not correct and not safe.

The worst behaviour has been the media, and I think the worst headline has to be the Independent's 'too much breastfeeding 'puts children off greens' '.

yy, tiktok - the market economy for universities has a lot to answer for sometimes.

TT, do you ever feel you're banging your head against a brick wall? Or does this kind of thing just inspire you to keep going, supporting individuals to make informed choices?

As a HV can I just bang my head repeatedly on a desk now? Fecking researchers and constantly changing advice - I have yet to read this report but who was it funded by?

nkvd - there needs to be a "militant bf brigade" to counter the wealth of misinformation spread by the media and manufacturers. I struggled with BF and bottlefed too but it doesn't stop me being aware of the issues.

nkvd, that is NOT why it's caused a stir. Have you the thread? It's been badly misreported, it's not new research and it's a classic example of piss-poor scientific journalism. That should piss all of us off, however we fed our children, or even if we don't have children, as it does us all a disservice.

Hopelessly - this was unfunded, iirc, as it was a smallish review, containing no "advice" per se, simply ideas for further research. It's the reporting, not the researchers to blame. research can and should continue - reporting should be a damn sight more responsible.

Where on earth have you heard someone say 'everyone can exclusively and successfully bf', nkvd? If someone has said this to you, they clearly don't know much about infant feeding, so their opinion can be ignored, I would say!

I am a breastfeeding counsellor and anyone involved in bf support knows that it can be a struggle for many mothers, quite unrelated to how hard they try.

I don't know who these 'militant' people are who think they are always right - the more you understand this issue, the more you see that there is no one-size-fits-all.

gaelic - yes, I do feel like that sometimes.

Have you read the thread, I should say. I have read the original article, and it's pretty shocking to see how badly it's misrepresented by the press.

nkvd. I think have you underlying issues regarding how you fed your own baby. It would help you if you could address your obvious anger.

I weaned both my DDs at the age they seemed to be ready for it which, in both cases, was somewhere between 5 and 6 calendar months. I didn?t want to miss the obvious ?window? that the signs Mother Nature was giving me created. I didn?t stop breastfeeding either of them at that point.

Seemed the most sensible approach to me and still does!

The press needs to be hauled over the coals for its health reporting full stop. Just look at the frenzy being whipped up over swine flu deaths. Not once have I ever heard the death figures being put in proper context in relation to deaths from other types of flu in other years. The recent report on the BBC News about the little girl who died from swine flu was an absolutely classic example, calculated to be emotive and grab the attention of parents everywhere. It is sloppy, irresponsible and somehow something has to be done. The Press Complaints Commission clearly doesn't care or it would have been dealt with years ago.

and to my mind this shouldn't be a breastfeeding thing - its more of a when to introduce solids thing.

If you didn't exclusively breastfeed and used formula, so what! i am sure your babies are still happy and loved.

I introduced formula with DD1 at 5 weeks (unsuccessfully once - she was allergic) then again at 5 months (non-dairy based) and with DD2 at 6.5 months

In each case this was driven purely by when I returned to work.

Has anyone alerted Ben Goldacre to this? It should be right up his street.

No point in even bothering with the PCC. Toothless and useless.

The way this is being represented in headlines is ridiculous. Plus the comment 'bitty' has already surfaced on the Guardian's article on this and had 36 recommends.