Okay all you fabulous mumsnetters - listen to this advice on weaning.

[incognitoHV]

Name changing again....

Thougt you might be interested in the latest guidelines I have been sent by my employers regarding the nutrition of children aged 0-5. Here's what it has to say on the subject of weaning....

"The Department of Health have clarified that six months (26 weeks) is the recommended age for introduction of solid food for all infants, both formula fed and breastfed.
Occasionally some parents may wish to wean earlier than six months. Should they wish to do this, four months (17 weeks) should be regarded as the earliest age at which solids should be introduced. The DOH weaning guide states 20 weeks is the earliest age to wean but no references as to how this age was arrived at could be found."

So - now - er - let me see if I've got this right. I advise 26 weeks but I could also justify 17 weeks if a Mum really wants to wean - or should that be 20 weeks? Clear as mud I'd say. So next time your HV gives you crap advice regarding weaning - this is probably why - nobody seems to have a bloody clue.
As a Mum who used BLW for my DS (incidently the guidelines do not mention BLW - perhaps they've never heard of it) I'll carry on talking to parents about that and keep pushing the six month advice - but what's the point really if the DOH is still saying 20 weeks and my Trust 17 weeks (all easily discovered via the internet).
Oh crap - I don't know what I'm talking about anymore.

I know what a rant this is turning into but honestly I really do despair at times.

thanks for clearing that up

Clear as mud.

No wonder HVs seem confused.

Am quite frankly disgusted that the guidelines are this poor. I just can't help but feel the reason so many Children in this country are developing allergies, obesity ets and are in poorer health in general could be helped no end if the Health Professionals were given accurate and upto date training.

It's not just HV but Midwives and GPs that all have different views and guidance to follow. Is it really that hard for the government to amend it's guidlines across the board to say:

Babies should not be weaned before 26 weeks. Breastfeeding should be encouraged and supported to age 1 and juice should never be recommended as an antidote to a dodgy tummy in a 3 month old. etc. etc.

AGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and

Blardy red tape, too many chiefs not enough indians blardy government!!!!!!!!!!!!

(CMOC takes deep breath! and relax.....)

Sorry - got a bit carried away

No prob CMOC - feel a bit that way myself at times with this subject.

OK I might sound like I am putting the cat amongst the pigeons and I don't mean to but I really am interested in this. Why has there been a change in policy from weaning at 4 months to weaning at 6 months?

DS1 was born in 2000 and all the HVs, leaflets and books I read said that 4 mths was the ideal time to start a child on solids so that is what I did. Even the Annabel Karmel books started their programmes at 4 mths and that is what everybody did. Some did it even sooner if they were deemed to have a hungary baby. As far as I can tell this had been the policy since I was a baby 40 years ago. By the time DS2 was born in 2003 this had all changed to 6mths although there seemed to be a lot of confusion between gov't policy, leaflets and HVs who seemed to be split into 2 camps depending on how long they had been doing the job I suppose.

I seem to be picking up that the change is due to the rise in allergies and obesity but if 4mths has been the policy for the last 40 years and rates in allergies and obesity have only recently (relatively) become a problem then surely the 4mth weaning date is not the issue. Are there other reasons for this change?

I should say that I breastfed DS1 until he was 13 months when he decided he had had enough and DS2 to 16mths when he also decided to give me a permanent break from those particular duties. I started solids according to the policy at the time I don't think that there is any real difference in the health of my children. Also I would say that DS2 was more than ready and interested in food a good month before 6mths but I held off giving him anything which was actually quite hard at the time.

So my question is why the change and why does it matter so much?

Niecie .. I agree with your post.

Excellent post Niecie. I'm also intrigued too. Both mine were - shock horror - weaned at 4 months. Neither, thank goodness, have allergies, are over-weight and appear to be in good health. I often wonder how much is to do with what pregnant mothers are now cutting out of their diets i.e liver, cheese, peanuts, and how much people are disinfecting their homes has to do with this rise.

Processed food I'm sure has a lot to do with obesity and a too sedentary lifestyle revolving around games consoles and computers .

40 some years ago I was weaned at 4mnths, was bottle fed (don't know why sorry) have no allergies, am decidely not overweight and my mother was definitely not a huge disinfecter and ever drank stout and eat liver whilst expecting me.

Anyone else what to wonder why things are so different?

I agree that as a Mother you do as you are advised and it should be the right thing. I think I get so annoyed because the advice is conflicting. It puts doubts in your mind as a Mother.

As if it isn't confusing enough already!

For 5 months I was told BF exclusively. Then all of a sudden a HV told me DD should be on 3 meals a day! I worried for days that I had been doing something wrong - and I am usually quite intelligent and well informed!

I weaned DS at 4 months (5 years ago) but from all I have read it seems that the evidence saying six months would mean less allergies etc has been around 10 years or more.

I used to be a childrens nurse and still do alot of reading(keeping up to date). The Western world has much higher rates of coeliac disease and allergies than other countries where weaning is delayed to six months and beyond. WHO recommend six months now so I guess that's why the change has come about.

Guess that's why it matters so much. My sister was being fed pureed food from 2 weeks (yes you did read correctly) 40 years ago and is also fine. I bet if all babies had been given this from such a young age though there would have been a huge number who suffered as a result.

Wow - I thought I was going to get stoned for even questioning it.

HVs are only human I suppose and have as much difficulty with keeping up with changes in policy as the rest of us. Some probably don't even agree with it, having given different and seemingly good advice for the majority of their working lives. Must be horrible to told that all those mother's you had advised during your career have been doig 'the wrong thing' because of you. Not surprising the advice is confusing. I am sure that these things take a long time (maybe even a generation) to settle in - like trying to change course with a cruise liner - it can't be done instantly, it takes time.

But why change at all? I was wondering what the rationale was.

My point exactly - I weaned at 14.5 weeks because DS was not taking milk and had reflux.

I went with my own instincts cos the DOH can't make up their frigging minds on anything and just didn't fill me with confidence.

Neicie - I agree

My older two were weaned at about 17 weeks as advised at the time. This time I have tried to hold out but started weaning at 23 weeks, because my baby is so huge and starving he was feeding every 90-120 minutes!!!

My siblings all have allergies (we were bottle fed and waened at 4 months) but none of my kids have any allergies etc , which I put down to my husbands fabby genes and to them getting loads of breast milk

Fabby genes have got a great deal to do with infant nutrition and health matters in general.

I have fatty genes . and I worry. a lot. My ds2 is 21 weeks and is getting hungrier and hungrier... I weaned ds1 at about 22 weeks and am trying to wait until ds2 shows mre of an interest in food before introducing solids, but he is definitely increasing his feeds.

agree with Niecie, I weaned my two eldest at 4 months, as was recommended and no problems. In fact they told us to wean them by 6 months or you may have trouble getting a 6 month old to eat solids.
I ignored the 'new' 6 month goal with regards to dd [who was 5 months] and shall do so again with this lo unless he seems to want to wait.

Honestly wasn't having a go at anyone who weaned before six months - just trying to illustrate how all the powers that be have no real consensus. It's madness to say on one hand "current advice is six months" and then on the other - "oh well he/she is 17 weeks so if you want to wean now go ahead"

On the basis of these "guidelines" it would appear anything goes as long as a baby is 17 weeks. The lack of clarity is what annoys me in all this - no wonder everyone is so confused.

That's fine, incog

I don't think anyone on this thread took the wrong end of the stick. It's the confusion that bothers, and that's for sure.

No, it was a good OP and a good thread. Well done to you!

But incognitoHV do you know why the guidelines changed in the first place?

My original point was that I assumed it can't solely be because of the rise in allergies and obesity as the 4 mth guideline seems to have been in place longer than the problem of allergies and obesity. Maybe it is, I don't know, but surely there must be some official reason for changing the policy. Maybe if everybody understood better there would be greater adherence to the new guidelines.

I know you are not knocking anybody for their choice by the way - as you say there is a lot of confusion. There seem to be some people in other threads who are very strident in their support of 6 months and I just wanted to know what they are standing up for.

Probably should have thought about this more when I was starting DS2 on solids rather than just accepting the rules had changed and going with the change of advice. Probably too knackered to think about it much back then!

there are loads of threads in Weaning and Breast and Bottlefeeding about the guidelines.

Simply put, the WHO (and UNICEF) has been recommending 6 months for 10 full yrs now. BTW, the WHO does not make policy for only 3rd world babies. It makes policy for all babies. The policy is based on a lot of evidence-based research. And these organisations are very conservative when it comes to drawing up guidelines for everyone.

This guideline only came into effect in the UK since 2005. Funny, it coincided with when women were allowed 26 wks of paid mat. leave and you know how women want to be the first person to put food into their baby's mouths. And delaying it for so long as possible also meant that the sooner we got ourselves back to work, the less we would 'cost' the state in maternity benefits and go back to paying taxes. Also, the longer this policy can come into place, the earlier (therefor longer) baby food stuff the manufacturers can sell us stuff. These people lobby gov't on policy and make donations to parties.

this leaflet from the DOH itself

I have to admit to not fully understanding the science behind the recommendations so please read up about this yourself if you are concerned - but it is to do with tiny gaps in a babies intestines - I suppose you could say it is "set" to absorb BM at Birth. Then gradually they become smaller until 6m when it is safe to give some solid foods as the holes are then too small for molecules of the foods to pass through. This process continues for some time hence the advice not to give babies nuts or allergy prone babies other types of foods until later.

The problem is that if the molecules pass through the lining of the intestines they can cause an adverse reaction in the babies immune system which can trigger food intollerances and allergies.

I read about this myself and so armed with the knowledge delayed weaning until 6m and have luckily been able to exclusively BF. I do not judge others who chose to do it differently or were advised at the time to do things differently, I just want the health proffessionals to know the facts and pass them on rather than having to research it myself. Not everyone has the time or inclination (or ability) to arm themselves with the facts. Surely that is why there are people to advise us? Don't we have the right to be given accurate and upto date advice.

Sounds like we all agree - just give us consistant and accurate advice!

see - no ranting today - must have been PMT!!!!!!!!!

The thing I think is crazy is the so-called "cut off" which seems to occur at 6 months. Until a baby is six months you're advised that all feeding equipment (including weaning spoons, bowls etc) must be sterilised. Cow's milk may be introduced in cooking from six months. My DS will be six months on Monday. What difference would it make if I sterilise his weaning spoon today and then stop doing so on Monday? All seems a bit arbitrary to me. I started him on solids last weekend but am going easy for the first week - he's just had baby rice until now. But I can't see what difference it makes starting him one week from six months than starting him bang on six months - surely his intestines aren't going to radically alter in the space of a week?

Advice seems to change all the time. I'm 38 and was given my first "solids" at 8 weeks, as was the recommendation then. AND it was egg yolk! God, would we be castigated if we did that now! I am probably one of the fittest, healthiest people I know - in no way overweight and have no allergies. Plus I was formula-fed. DS is also formula-fed and seems to be a hell of a lot healthier than some of my friends' babies who have been exclusively breast-fed. What I'm saying is that a lot of it is the luck of the draw and down to genes. You can possibly reduce the risk of allergies and obesity but a child either has a tendency to them or not.

quite, I think this is a more 'I don't quite understand all the changes' thread rather than anyone getting irritated. I hope it stays that way.

Guidelines are just that after all. Personally I reckon that babies are all different and there is probably no magic button at 6 months (other than maybe re allergenic things such as gluten) so hanging out until that exact day seems a bit mad if your baby is stealing food off your plate and eating it!

I'm not in anyway qualified though

Guidelines are always changing. They haven't said 4 months to my knowledge for the last 40 years - my mum kept a diary when I was small, and at 9 weeks I had only gained an ounce that week, so she was told she had to wean, on bone and vegetable broth!

Just as an aside, the b/feeding guidelines in her hospital make amusing reading (this is mid 70s btw)

Baby must not have anything to drink for 12 hours (although I was 'lucky' and allowed half an ounce of water out of a bottle).

After 12 hours, offer each breast for 1 minute each. Then offer 3-4oz formula.

Repeat at 4 hourly intervals.

Day 2 - offer each breast for 2 minutes each. Then offer 3-4oz formula. At 4 hourly intervals

Day 3 - offer each breast for 3 minutes each side, then offer formula, 4 hourly intervals.

Etc etc. They all stayed in for 12 days. I have all the feeding charts etc. And they were RIGID in their rules, so crazy guidelines is not new. In fact, I'm going to start a new thread on loopy b/feeding advice!