Why can’t baby have baby rice before 6 months if the product says 4-6?

[whatiszzz]

Why does it say 4-6 if we aren’t supposed to wean until 6 months? I’m not planning to wean baby until 6 months as I don’t feel comfortable with it however my husband keeps asking if we can give her baby rice soon as she’s 4 months.

It’s confusing as being told different things…

I think 6 is NHS guidelines but all babies may vary

It's recommended age.
'Official' advice is 6 months but some babies need solids earlier. By saying '4-6' months means it's safe for 4 month olds.
But really you should only give solids earlier if recommend by a health/medical person.

They can, it’s just a guideline

The guidelines vary in different jurisdictions and at different times, sometimes 4, sometimes 6.it just depends.

Babies used to be weaned earlier, some babies still are although it’s now advised to wait. It just means for those who are weaning early, for whatever reason, the product is safe to give their baby.

Why does he keep asking if you can give it to DD soon if he knows it’s best to wait until 6 months and how many times have you had to tell him?

They can be weaned earlier.

Some babies are, on medical advice for example.

The WHO say 6 months

but the European allergies organisation say 4-6 months

This study says not to postpone introduction of solids

I believe it's something to do with the advertising legislation not being updated so when the guidance was to wean from 4m, companies weren't allowed to advertise things as being suitable for any younger. The weaning age was updated but the advertising laws/rules were not so they can state it's suitable for 4m+ despite research showing waiting until 6m (unless medically directed) is safest.

6 months is the recommended age for a 'standard' baby, but some will be advised to wean earlier, maybe for colic or allergies. If it is medically necessary to early wean, the 4+ month baby food is smooth enough that a baby that age could manage it.

They want to make more money! 4 months = buying more of the product.

Because they want to sell their product.... Babies can have baby rice at that age but it's not recommended, much like sleepyheads and cot bumpers are not recommended but still sold.

As an aside, baby rice won't help your child learn to chew and swallow which is what weaning is about. It's just something different that they suck. there's no real reason to give it.

Just to come in and point out that For some babies weaning is recommended at that age.

Paediatrician recommended early weaning for my son due to reflux but I tried it and he just wasn't interested at all so left it
Also just gave pureeed fruit or veg as baby rice is like wallpaper paste as expensive for what it is

Because the manufacturers of baby rice want to see more baby rice

The guidelines to delay until 6 months came in between my 2 DC. HV explained it to me. 4 months is fine for most babies, but some idiots were weaning before 3 months, so the 6 month guideline was brought in the hope that no one would start before 4.

Because companies that make stiff like baby rice want to make money. What a packet of baby rice says is advertising. What the NHS says is advice. That's the difference.

Because the baby rice company want 2 months' extra sales. If they get 8 months out of everyone vs 6 months (just making a random assumption that bought baby foods are used from weaning to 12 months), then they've increased their revenue by 25%. Same as why they sell "growing up milk" for babies over 1 but the NHS says they don't need formula and can just drink cow's milk.

There is probably a law saying they can't advertise it for under 4 months or they'd say it was suitable even earlier.

This is an interesting post: facebook.com/breastfeedinguncovered/posts/2936586876602973

www.facebook.com/breastfeedinguncovered/posts/2936586876602973

That might work better

All depends on your baby mine had to go on food at 12 weeks due to refusing milk and it was making him ill so he went onto food some babies get hungrier and they can be recommended to feed food earlier

Guideline is around 6 months.

Before 4 months/17 weeks is actively harmful.

Sometime between 4-6 months is fine but no harm comes from waiting til 6 months.

Babies are more likely to develop food allergies/intolerances if fed solids before age six months.

I ignored this and introduced some solids from 4 months.

DD has a food allergy and I will always wonder if it’s my fault.

Don’t be me!

My DS wasn't weaned until 6 months and has a food allergy so don't know how true that is.
I weaned DD at 5 months after she stole food off my plate and ate it before I'd realised!

Willowswave That’s the opposite of the studies produced

I'm pretty sure the allergy thing has been disproven, that's what they used to say but it's now actually thought to be the opposite, the earlier you introduce an allergen the more it protects against the allergy. It seems to be too early in the research to change recommendations yet, US has changed guidance but UK requires more robust evidence before they do, but either way it's unlikely that your child's food allergy is your fault.

Starting at 4 months does carry more risks than starting at 6 months and there is no harm in waiting, so it makes sense to wait. But as long as you don't start before 4 months, the risks are small and basically related to food contamination causing gastro infections, or food pushing breast/formula milk out of the diet too soon and causing less nutrient intake (or drop in breastmilk supply) as a consequence.