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 BF my first and tried to introduce solids at around 5 months (bit of baby cereal, mashed banana etc) but he wasn't interested at all. I tried every couple of weeks and he finally went for it at 8 months. He was the biggest baby out of the baby group and walked at 9 months.

I carried on BF'ing at nights but he pushed me away when he was one and that was that.

Why cant mothers be encouraged to go with their intuition and what feels good for them? Breastfeeding, co sleeping, picking up when they cry etc etc Chuck away the books. Dont visit the health visitor when you know you have a healthy baby just for them to weigh and measure your baby and tell you they are under/over weight blah blah.

All these studies cause more harm than good imo.

hear hear ladysoandso

I wish, more than anything, that I hadn't read any books or studies when I had my first. You lose your intuition, which IMO, is a mother's greatest asset.

This stuff is putting me in a r/l bad mood today. It is soooo frustrating.

I am imagining a corresponding imaginary sweeping headline: "Infant formula causes stomach bugs". But that will never happen will it, because they'd get sued into oblivion. Nobody manufactures breastmilk so they think its fair game. Nobody except all of us individual mothers that is, but who cares about that.

And as has been rightly pointed out, the article isn't even about breastfeeding. It's just that if you're giving formula then introducing solids makes much less difference.

Can we have a mumsnet letter to the press complaints commission, given how effective it was over the eastenders SIDS plotline (not to mention the P&O breastfeeding advice)? Haven't read the original research article yet (I'm on mat leave and can' access the uni library from home) but I have a feeling that this is actually a non-story drummed up by an over-zealous university press office and a scientifically illiterate media.

From what I've read in the papers, and on this thread (thanks tiktok), this "news story" is typical bad science reporting - and is the second time in a week after the ridiculous rubbish about the implant contraceptive www.badscience.net/2011/01/putting-a-number-in-its-context/#more-1924 that the media are sending out confusing and potentially dangerous messages to the general public. I think the appalling state of health/science reporting in the UK media is actually far more of an issue for parents than the plot line of a single soap. Much more harm will have been done to parent's confidence, and children's health with crappy reporting of breastfeeding statistics/guidelines (and guidelines on drinking in pregnancy, swine flu vaccination, the implanon contraceptive, and don't even get me started on the MMR debacle).

Newspapers/broadcast news media should be required by law to employ a statistically literate medical SCIENTIST to copy edit all health-related news stories.

Don't worry OP. You can still do "BLW" just like most parents have since the beginning of time.

oh and university press offices too.....

I take it back. Worst headline is not the Indie's. It's here :

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/health/health/3351004/Breast-milk-can-put-babies-off-food-cause-allergy-says-study.html

Read the doctor's comment, too.

I wondered when the "bf will put babies off greens" thing would pop up in the media. Presumably the Independent were looking for an angle that no-one else had yet.

This is from a throwaway line by the author who muses that not introducing bitter foods early (such as pureed carrot and apple obviously ) might make babies refuse green vegetables later on. It was based on nothing, nothing was cited in the paper in support of it, it appears purely to be the author's own supposition and she doesn't even actually clearly state that she believes this.

Not really much to hang a headline on.

Ah, the Sun are going for that angle too.

I love how they quote the paper and then tack on their own "rejection of veg could damage health when child is older". Fab reporting.

This is so depressing, so much damage done by one piece of opinion (calling research seems over generous).

BBC had a headline 'breast'may not be best' - i expect I wasn't alone in complainign, it's now changed to something about early weaning which is something, but far too late.

I think there is too much pressure on mums to breast feed. From my own experience, my DC1 was 10lb 7oz at birth and i struggled to feed him, i BF til 9 wks old and this was a long 9 wks!! He fed constantly, all day, til he was sick then start again.
Once formula was introduced (hungrier baby variety) he was def more satified. And i know its always endorsed that breast is best, but i dont think enough has been said about time when actually it isnt.
All my family told me to give him a bottle but i refused saying breast is best etc, stating all the details about immunity etc etc now looking back i realise my poor DC1 was more damaged from wks of constant hunger crying and my inability to feed him (and i did go to BF support groups who just said he'll only take what he needs etc)

Here's the NHS Behind The Headlines take on it (very good site for debunking media crap in general) www.nhs.uk/news/2011/01January/Pages/call-for-breastfeeding-advice-to-be-re-examined.aspx

Sorry - www.nhs.uk/news/2011/01January/Pages/call-for-breastfeeding-advice-to-be-re-examined.aspx

Oh I do love NHS Behind the Headlines. They're so reasonable .

So why don't the BBC get the writers of BTH to come on, eh?

They're librarians Hab. We don't really give good tv.

Depends what you mean by good TV! I'd happily equate good with accurate and informative...

Actually, that was very unfair to the BTH team who are probably ver glamorous as well as being reasonable, systematic and evidence-based.

Why oh why oh why is the media reporting this as breast isn't best ??????? Why why why why. Why.

The leafy green veg thing is just ridiculous - what's it doing in a scientific paper anyway? It's got no supporting evidence, it just seems to have been a passing thought (and an uninformed one, as it suggests breastmilk is a uniform flavour which it isn't, it changes daily)

I could have a passing thought that every time someone weans their baby at eight weeks little angels cry real tears but I wouldn't expect headlines about it.

FFS Why is the Guardian article all about mothers?? Surely the Guardian of all papers might have noticed that both men and women are parents and responsible for making decisions about their infants' nourishment.

To be fair on the authors of the report, one of them was on the Jeremy Vine show (with Matthew Bannister) and she did try to make the point that all they were advocating was that more research needs to be done and that "weaning" didn't mean stopping breast feeding, which was still the best form of nutrition, but meant introducing other foods alongside breast milk.

Here's what Baby Milk Action are emailing their subscribers about the news reports if anyone's interested:

WHO breastfeeding recommendations under attack from industry-funded scientists
Email alert 14 January 2011 (please reply with 'delete' as the subject if you do not wish to receive future alerts, reply with 'subscribe as the subject if you did not receive this email from Baby Milk Action and wish to be added to our list).
The BBC, the Guardian and other media are carrying stories about a new paper which was published in the British Medical Journal today. The four authors of the paper are challenging the WHO recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding until 6 months of age. The authors do not challenge the recommendation to continue breastfeeding alongside complementary feeding. However, some news reports are simplistically suggesting that the value of 'breastfeeding for 6 months' is being questioned. Three of the four authors of this study have received funding from the baby food industry.
Baby Milk Action has analysed the recommendations made by the four authors and linked to sources of information on its website, including the research (a review of 3,000 studies) that led to the WHO recommendations on breastfeeding. See:
info.babymilkaction.org/news/policyblog140111
WHO has responded to the controversy created by the four authors with the paper in the BMJ by pointing out: "WHO closely follows new research findings in this area and has a process for periodically re-examining recommendations. Systematic reviews accompanied by an assessment of the quality of evidence are used to review guidelines in a process that is designed to ensure that the recommendations are based on the best available evidence and free from conflicts of interest.
"The paper in this week's BMJ is not the result of a systematic review. The latest systematic review on this issue available in the Cochrane Library was published in 2009."
The review found that: "Exclusive breastfeeding for six months (versus three or four months) reduces gastrointestinal infection, does not impair growth, and helps the mother lose weight."
For further information see:
info.babymilkaction.org/news/policyblog140111
Baby Milk Action is interested to receive reports on how this story is reported around the world. So please post links and information as comments to the blog.
Other experts have raised issues relating to exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months and obesity and swine flu.
Best wishes,
Mike Brady
Campaigns and Networking Coordinator
Baby Milk Action