Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Weaning

Find weaning advice from other Mumsnetters on our Weaning forum. Use our child development calendar for more information.

Original poster

My reply to a query from Organix...

155 replies

colditz · 28/02/2006 12:37

()

Hi there *,

Thank you for your mail concerning the recommended age for weaning by
the WHO.

We do adhere to their guidelines and whilst they have said from 6
months
they have also confirmed to us that it could happen any time between 4
to 6 months so we are still allowed to say this on our foods. If you
look at competitor products like Heinz, Hipp and Cow and Gate they are
doing the same.

The reasons they have directed us to do this is because many babies are
ready to wean before 6 months of age and parents are frustrated that
they have to wait until 6 months of age to feed their hungry babies.

The coin is two-sided. We will always follow guidelines and
legislation
and have always done so. We have had it confirmed that we are able to
say in our literature that Health Professionals recommend that weaning
shouldn't take place before 6 months so if you want to start the
process
sooner than this you need to consult a Health Professional.

We are following guidelines and we have had confirmation that we can
say
this on our packaging. When and if that situation changes of course we
will change it according to what we are told and guided to do by the
government and health professionals.

We are always very open and honest within our communications and will
always adhere to rules and regulations concerning babyfoods and
otherwise.

I am sorry that you feel disappointed but I do hope this has helped
answer some of your concerns.

Kind Regards
Marie Van Hagen
Brand/Customer Service Manager

What do you all think? I think Hunker will be interested in this reply, as she is known to get rabid on the subject Wink

OP posts:
geekgrrl · 28/02/2006 16:57

I'd say most wean early because they mistakenly believe their babies need solids, even though solids aren't anywhere near as nutrient-dense as breastmilk or formula.

DaisyBrambleofWillowbottom · 28/02/2006 16:58

yeah satine is right. and that was in WHO thingy too... about educationg health professionals.

i was asked when ds was 4 months if i had started weaning yet.
I think all health professionals should be going by the guidelines, but offering support should parents choose to wean earlier...

HRHQueenOfQuotes · 28/02/2006 16:58

geekgirl - I certainly noticed a difference about 1 month after starting my 2 on solids. They were definitely more content, and slept better (well DS2 was already a good sleeper).

hunkermunker · 28/02/2006 16:58

Largely because the "signs" that they need weaning are actually just "signs" that your baby is four months old.

HRHQueenOfQuotes · 28/02/2006 16:58

geekgirl - I certainly noticed a difference about 1 month after starting my 2 on solids. They were definitely more content, and slept better (well DS2 was already a good sleeper).

hunkermunker · 28/02/2006 17:01

QoQ, my DS1 was also more settled a couple of weeks after his frantic growth spurt.

But he was more settled on just milk. Had I given him solids, I'd have thought it was them too probably.

geekgrrl · 28/02/2006 17:01

but how do you know that's due to solids? My dd1 (big, fat baby) started solids at 7 months but went through the normal growth spurts, too - at 5 months she was much more settled than at 4. And still exclusively breastfed.

Nbg · 28/02/2006 17:02

Without winding people up, I am genuinely interested to know why this bothers you?

Not picking spots, just nosey.

dinosaur · 28/02/2006 17:04

I know that exclusive breastfeeding is fine until the baby is six months old.

But surely exclusive bottle-feeding isn't, is it? Don't bottlefed babies need to start having other stuff earlier than six months?

Greensleeves · 28/02/2006 17:05

I agree with Hunker that some mothers do try desperately to wean when the baby patently isn't ready (which is different from the debate about whether they can be ready before 6mo or not). I don't think it's about oneupmanship in most cases though. I think, sadly, it comes down to the old chestnut of poor support of mothers in the early weeks/months with infant feeding, particularly painful and stressful breastfeeding, the lack of sleep, the anxiety over whether the baby is getting enough, the HV's unhelpful attitudes and constant weighings (it feels a bit like being drug-tested I found, I hated it). Much of it comes as a nasty shock and it can be very frightening. Once the baby is eating FOOD, which you can see, and you can stuff down him, that horrible no-man's land of not knowing whether he is going to suddenly expire/lose weight/wake up for another feed when you have just got to sleep - supposedly melts away.

So I think part of the reason for some mothers' eagerness to wean as early as possible is lack of proper support (again!Sad) and it is, in some measure perceived as being for the baby's benefit as well as the mother's own.

snowleopard · 28/02/2006 17:05

The WHO wants to recommend exculsive BF for as long as possible because, in countries with water problems, it prolongs the baby being protected from waterborne bacteria. I'd guess they have gone for 6 months because it's the maximum they can sensibly recommend (ie most babies are wanting solids around then).

So that should not make 6 months written in stone, should it? What do you think happened long ago, before government and WHO guidelines? People took their cues from their babies - a most sensible option.

DS had his first taste of solid food before I intended him to, when he grabbed my toast out of my hand and munched it (he was 4 months and one week). I think he was ready. How can signs like that be of less value than an arbitrary number of months chosen by a committee? I think Organix' letter, though not brilliantly written, pretty much makes sense. I weaned before 6 month, I used organix stuff and I'd have been annoyed if it said "from 6 months" on it.

Kathy1972 · 28/02/2006 17:06

OK, I have a question....
We are told that one of the signs they are ready for solids is when they start to be interested in food you are eating and try to grab bits off your plate. This was one of the reasons we thought our dd must be ready at 4 months.
Presumably it would make sense for this to happen at around the same time as their gut is ready, right? Or do we assume that there is a mismatch between these two stages of development? Does anyone have a child that started to do this much before 4 months?

HRHQueenOfQuotes · 28/02/2006 17:07

hm - trust me - I DS1 was never settled after his growth spurts - infact he never bloody settled at all properly until he was about 5 months old (on solids 3 times a day) - and then at 6 months we finally got more than 2hrs sleep in one go.

I know you hate the Red books, but neither of mine had growth spurts at 4 months, DS1 had one at 6 weeks, another at 6 months - and I lost track after that - oh actually he's just had another massive one at about 5yrs and 4 months Wink.

DS2 had a huge one at 2 weeks, one at 3 months and another massive one at 8 months (I know that as I've got his book on the shelf behind me lol).

geekgrrl · 28/02/2006 17:12

kathy, I don't think that's a genuine sign - I mean, at that age babies grab everything and take interest all sorts of stuff. I'd say that true signs of readiness are ability to sit up unsupported for a bit and ability to chew - a baby that is ready for solids - in my not so humble opinion Wink - should not need completely smooth purees.

morningpaper · 28/02/2006 17:14

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but packaging isn't really regulated in this country - therefore you can say pretty much whatever you like on packaging.

Kathy1972 · 28/02/2006 17:24

Geekgrrl, interesting that you say that. I wonder what happened pre-agriculture - did parents chew the food up to a pulp for their babies, or did they wait till they were bigger and give them little bits?

snowleopard · 28/02/2006 17:44

The way my DS went for food and the way he grabbed other things was completely different. He would stare at me eating and follow my fork from plate to mouth. He would reach for food insistently and whine, which he didn't do at that age with out-of-reach toys.

Also, interestingly, I instinctively wanted to give him bits of food I'd chewed a bit. I didn't do it because of worries about my germs etc., but I wanted to.

geekgrrl · 28/02/2006 17:45

I guess parents pre-chewed the food - isn't that what kissing originated from? But it would be difficult to pre-chew something to a completely lumpless mush.

Kathy1972 · 28/02/2006 17:50
Grin You are all getting me thinking now. I would love to snog my baby while passing her prechewed bits of food. Am I weird, or just atavistic? Wink
morningpaper · 28/02/2006 18:50

I have been known to pre-chew and pass to bubba

Not in company though

juliab · 28/02/2006 19:10

My (lovely) HV suggested the chewing thing when I was weaning ds1. She comes from Tibet - and she said that's what everyone does there

morningpaper · 28/02/2006 20:13

julia that's interesting

Tatties · 28/02/2006 22:05

This is really interesting. I agree with you Greensleeves about the fact that many people wean earlier than 6mths not because they want to keep up with everyone else, but because as a first time mother you just want to do the right thing and you take the advice given to you by hvs and experienced relatives in good faith. That is certainly my experience. The advice I was given was to start weaning before 26wks but not before 17wks - and to go with when your baby is ready.

I started ds on solids at 21wks, and with hindsight I know that I could have waited until 26wks, but at the time all I knew was that ds was a terrible sleeper, I was exhausted and solid food was the only thing I hadn't tried yet. He was already BF on demand so I didn't think it was possible to get any more milk into him! If there's a second time around though, I would have the confidence to see that 'unsettled' time as just a passing stage rather than something that I needed to 'fix' iykwim.

expatinscotland · 28/02/2006 22:13

I do agree w/them that 6 months isn't a hard and fast rule - some are ready before that and some later.

We did child-led weaning w/DD1, and she was pretty close to 6 months when she started trying to grab our spoons, made smacking movements, watched us eat keenly, etc.

tiktok · 01/03/2006 09:59

The WHO 4-6 mths thing is not their recommendation - it is their definition of 'exclusive breastfeeding' , for study purposes.

The guidance is clear and consistent - 6 mths.

This is guidance to governments and health care professionals to make this possible for mothers, rather than individual advice for individual babies, who are not all going to hit solids at exactly the same time. Human development doesn't work like that.

Way down thread someone asks about COMA - this was a report in 1994 which confirmed the then guidance of 4-6 months. It's been superceded for 3 years.