New bf study - power of MN to make a fuss ...

[cleanairplease]

...about the BBC has completely misrepresented this study (which actually has v little to say other than that bf is good).

Having interevened in a FICTIONAL story surely this REAL story, that will make life harder for mothers who want to bf and don't have support / make people give up, has much greater public health implications.

Whitethorn - I am ebfing my second child to at least six months. Headlines like these will probably encourage comments from my in-laws (my own parents know better). I may have to have discussions and justify my feeding choice. What joy.

I don't think it's being over-sensitive to be pissed off at irresponsible journalism.

Yama, why would you justify your methods, you are the mother and have your childs best interests at heart. My mother thought that my baby should be 'on the spoon' at 8 weeks!!
I just ignored until I thought she was ready.

Yeah, I know. It is really easy with my family - they all think I know best .

Different dynamics with in-laws though. I would have to be rude to avoid a conversation they wanted to have. Hmn ...

Oh and newspaper articles have been sent in the past about the delaying of cows milk causing allergies.

But Whitethorn, part of the problem is that the original article is so speculative that even your interpretation is unfounded, iyswim - you need to pepper it with "mights" and "mays" and "in certain circumstances" by which point you're better off having never read it at all.

It's nice to see the BBC's learned something - not. Clearly they've not been reading MN. Just heard a report on BBC Scotland news about nre Govt guidance on infant feeding. Apparently last week "experts urged parents to wean onto solids before 6 months". AAARGH.

To be fair, I don't think this is the case of the Beeb (or other media) overplaying a cautious study. I think the study itself is overblown and a dodgy analysis, and the authors have given interviews in which they are really quite gungho. When the lead author was asked about the fall in the number of babies being introduced to solids pre-four months since the DH revised its guidance, the lead author made what struck me as a really frickin' supercilious comment about "we can't lie to mothers even if it might encourage better health outcomes, the evidence is what the evidence is". What is the point of doing research whose only likely effect is to cause a net increase in the number of babies being harmed? Why couldn't she have taken the time to create a statement that DH could use that would reflect the truth without, at the least, 1 -discouraging EBF to four months and 2 - encouraging social pressure to not breastfeed at all?

Gaelicsheep: how did you contact the BBC? (I find their complaints system labyrinthine and it takes me forever to get through to the right screen)

I found this article about "Vitamin D and weaning advice for new Scottish mothers" and I want to complain about Eleanor Bradford's sloppy journalism. She states in the article "The policy was drawn up before evidence that babies should be given solid food before the age of six months was published in last week's British Medical Journal." - which, as we all know, is not the case.

I used the Contact Us link at the very bottom Then selected Website, then Style, Accuracy & Grammar. I used that form and was careful to include the url of the story in question.

I also think you have to be persistent. I sent comments twice and also posted on their message boards about it. HTH.

I saw that story too, but tbh I am losing the will with all this. People, including journalists, just do not read things properly. Grrr.

bump - did MNHQ comment anywhere about this?