Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Weaning

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

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

The government guidelines for weaning say to wait til 6 months, don't they?

68 replies

Wallace · 22/11/2006 20:18

So why, when I asked today, did my HV say they recommend between 4 to 6 months? A bit later in the conversation she did say something about "as close to 6 months as possible". Even worse, the red books you are given (for development checks, growth charts etc) say "babies can begin eating solid food between three and four months" !

OP posts:

Original poster

Wallace · 22/11/2006 21:27

Anyway, back to weaning...

I think that parents should be given the most up to date advice. Then they can make an informed choice about when to begin. I'm sure there are many mums who have weaned at 4 months, but would have waited til 6 if they had known.

OP posts:

VeniVidiVickiQV · 22/11/2006 21:28

Exactly - as parents - we have a 'duty' on MN to provide the most up to date and accurate information.

Original poster

Wallace · 22/11/2006 21:33

I might not have known without MN

OP posts:

CountTo10LordsaLeaping · 22/11/2006 21:36

VVQ - is it me or are you just spoiling for a fight all ways round tonight?

I know kids that were solely breast fed for 6mths and then in addition to weaning and solids up to nearly 2 and they still have allergies etc so I will never buy into the whole weaning early being directly linked to that kind of thing. I jsut think its another way of scaring vulnerable mothers into doing what one organisation wants. That's why I like the fact that hv's are willing to speak their mind based on the child in front of them rather than spiel out standard guidelines.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 22/11/2006 21:38

What if I was count to 10 - want to make something of it?

NotQuiteCockney · 22/11/2006 21:38

Ok, so the evil WHO wants mums to exclusively breastfeed to 6 months because ... um ... I'm missing something here ...

If it's not for valid scientific reasons (and I'm sorry, the fact you know some kids who were exclusively breastfed to six months and still have allergies doesn't exactly disprove science, any more than your 80-year-old grandmother who smoked 5 packs a day), then why?

DizzyBint · 22/11/2006 21:38

scaring vulnerable mothers? i think that's what alot of HVs do actually, rather than the WHO, who's job is health promotion.

fgs.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 22/11/2006 21:41

Sorry, but i dont buy the whole "WHO Conspiracy Theory"

They have absolutely nothing to gain from it. At all.

CountTo10LordsaLeaping · 22/11/2006 21:53

At the end of the day yes the WHO recommend that babies are exclusively breastfed up to 6 months. However, just as some girls are ready for bras earlier than others, each baby's digestive system develops at a different rate to another and some babies are ready for weaning earlier than others and I think whilst you should listen to guidelines you should also listen to your baby's needs. What you need to remember is that the WHO produces guidelines for the whole world not just us and when they talk about the exclusive breastfeeding, it is usually aimed at countries where infant mortality rates are high due to poor nutrition etc.

NotQuiteCockney · 22/11/2006 21:55

Um, and how can you tell a baby's gut is ready to digest food? MRI? CAT scan? Isn't it better to wait until the baby is six months?

AitchTwoOh · 22/11/2006 21:56

so how can you be sure that your baby's system is sufficiently developed without the aid of a camera and a medical degree? best to stick to the safe side of the guidelines, i say, as someone who has chronic IBS and was weaned early.

AitchTwoOh · 22/11/2006 21:57

x-posted nqc.

AitchTwoOh · 22/11/2006 22:00

actually i think the political element of this issue rests with our government, which taught HVs (against the advice of the WHO) to tell mothers that 3 months was the weaning age when they offered 3 months statutory maternity pay. now that it's 6 months... so the guidelines for HVs have changed. i think it must be tough for HVs who have advised 3 months or 4 months to just accept that their advice was wrong or overly influenced by national politics, so it's not hard to see why they'd still be peddling the 'when they're ready' line. and i wonder when your red book was laid out, wallace?

Original poster

Wallace · 22/11/2006 22:04

OP posts:

CountTo10LordsaLeaping · 22/11/2006 22:10

So can I take that to mean that when maternity is changed next year to 9mths and the year after to 1 year the guidelines change again? What I would also say is that every child development guide in the land gives signs of a baby showing to be ready for weaning. Are these all incorrect or have these just been made up to make ourselves feel better when making that decision? Did they internally investigate babies in some study to show that only those over 6mths are ready for weaning? I just think there is too much scaremongering around weaning and that parents should feel comfortable about listening to and building up their own instincts.

NotQuiteCockney · 22/11/2006 22:12

Well, the WHO has been saying 6 months for rather a long time. Weaning did used to wait until 6 to 9 months, from what I know.

Why on earth would they keep making the weaning age higher, if there was no scientific reason to do so?

CountTo10LordsaLeaping · 22/11/2006 22:16

Ok so exactly what reasons have been given by the WHO for the 6mth ruling and based on what?

AitchTwoOh · 22/11/2006 22:20

you seem to have (willfully?) misunderstood what i was saying.
as far as i understand it, the WHO has been recommending waiting 6 months for over ten years. the government only took the WHO recommendations on board when they changed the legislation... i don't think that's a coincidence, do you? but when mat leave goes to one year it won't change the WHO advice, will it?
interestingly, when Gill Rapley of the Unicef Baby-Friendly project undertook her research to see when infants would self-feed, the babies picked up food and ate it at six months or after rather than four months when the trial started.

NotQuiteCockney · 22/11/2006 22:36

The WHO decision was based on a range of studies showing that exclusive breastfeeding to six months is best for babies. This page is good on the reasons to delay solids.

hunkermunker · 22/11/2006 22:43

What signs show a baby is ready for weaning, CountTo10? I guarantee I know what you're going to say...

terramum · 22/11/2006 22:45

CountTo10LordsaLeaping: "What you need to remember is that the WHO produces guidelines for the whole world not just us and when they talk about the exclusive breastfeeding, it is usually aimed at countries where infant mortality rates are high due to poor nutrition etc."

If that were true - why arent they called the thirdworld health organisation. I really dont understand this argument at all. The main reason for not introducing solids before 6 months is the immaturity of the gut & its inability to process solids properly. Yes, the poorer third world babies might be more prone to to poor nutrition once they start solids, but that doesnt mean first world babies are ready for solids before them - we dont magically mature faster than them.

moondog · 22/11/2006 22:48

Wallace,you need to point out to the people hassling you to get your baby onto solids,that at this age the mouth is the primary sensory organ.
The baby is using his lips and tongue to explore the object,in much the same way that we 'explore' an object with our eyes and hands.

lol at the camera

hunkermunker · 22/11/2006 22:49

CountTo10, it is utterly wrong that the advice to bfeed exclusively for 6m is aimed at developing countries.

moondog · 22/11/2006 22:49

Peopl just aren't satisfied are they unless thy've hassled poor babies into growing up as fast as they possibly can manage it.

Then of course they sigh and get all sentimental about when they were tiny.

Feckin' leave 'em alone!!

CountTo10LordsaLeaping · 22/11/2006 22:56

Signs that indicate baby is developmentally ready for solids include:
Baby can sit up well without support.
Baby has lost the tongue-thrust reflex and does not automatically push solids out of his mouth with his tongue.
Baby is ready and willing to chew.
Baby is developing a ?pincer? grasp, where he picks up food or other objects between thumb and forefinger. Using the fingers and scraping the food into the palm of the hand (palmar grasp) does not substitute for pincer grasp development.
Baby is eager to participate in mealtime and may try to grab food and put it in his mouth

The above was taken directly from the website that nqc gave me and can all show in a baby under 6mths so are we supposed to ignore them? As for the website it echos what I said earlier on in this thread about it not being about the effect food has on a baby rather promote the benefits of exclusively breastfeeding. It does mention about preventing allergies etc but this is all as a result/advantage of breastfeeding. I do agree that their can be effects on a baby weaned too early but a lot of these websites also talk about countries where there is no or little food or poor hygeine/disease etc (where formula feeding) so exlcusively breast feeding has shown to help in bringing down infant mortalities. This is what I've been trying to say - WHO guidelines are not solely about weaning being dangerous but trying to encourage mothers to get back to breastfeeding etc.

Flip

1 2 3