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.

[very proud] you'd better put it up on the site, then, to redeem your cavalier parenting style.

From Neicie: The paragraph that ruins it all for me in the DofH leaflet is this one.

"Solid foods should not be introduced before the end of your baby?s fourth month (at 17 weeks). If you decide to introduce your baby to solid foods before six months there are many foods that should be avoided."

I think the ambiguity here lies in putting those 2 statements, right at the front of the leaflet and just after preaching on about waiting to 26 wks. These things have an big but subtle meaning to readers.

From a semantic point of view, the first statement is telling parents what they are not to do. (Introduce solids before 17 wks) The second sentence, starting with 'If' recognises that some parents will introduce foods before 26 wks, despite what a leaflet says - so it is telling these parents not to introduce certain foods.

"Surely it should say don't introduce solids before 26weeks and leave it at that."

• Yes it could have done that but then some other bright light (I mean that in a nice way) would say the opposite thing like: But waht if I wanted to start solids at 20 wks or 13 wks or whatever? So it is nice that they put this extra info in. But a pity it was done so poorly.

"Why mention the possibility from 17 weeks at all? "

• Because that is what loads of parents want or are advised to do, I am supposing.

Why did the guideline change?
-The WHO changed the guideline 10 yrs ago. It is based on a lot of research into weaning and bfing over a lot of years - from the Developed countries - including the US, UK and from other lesser developed ones, eg. Honduras. It is stultifying to hear people still pulling out the old nut that this guideline is only for places with poor sanitation and undernourished mums, etc, etc. I don't believe that one who argues these views have actually taken the time to find where the information came from.

The Who brought out this recommendation in 1997, if i remember correctly. The DoH adopted the advice to bf (exclusivly) for 26 wks in 2003, I believe - but did not link it and change the weaning guideline till 2005.

"To my mind the DofH gives you the opportunity to argue for 17 weeks, the NI one doesn't. "

• i think that it mostly comes down to a more informative leaflet (the N I one) and a les informative and less effectively taught out one(England).

LOL currantbun - my DD is famous for her "Pear face" Had never seen the expression before!

Kisidee - that is the point I suppose - not that the words themselves are particularly wrong but that the way it has been set out is giving the wrong message. It isn't clear. Sorry, I'm sounding like a broken record but it isn't too me and I would say, without wishing to sound big-headed or anything, that I am fairly well educated, fairly well read on child dev issues (although mostly from a psychological point of view) and I don't think the DofH leaflet does anybody any favours.

I am not denying that there is probably loads of evidence that 26 weeks is the best but I don't think they even mention research in the DofH leaflet let alone reference it for further info to the research if you feel you need refer to more detailed information.

What about this sentence:
"Solid foods should not be introduced before the end of your baby?s fourth month (at 17 weeks)".

If you changed 17wks to 26wks. The second sentence would still work but supports the current guideline.

This whole thing would make a really interesting research project for a health psychologist. It is so tied up with feelings, traditions and attitudes to authority.

"This whole thing would make a really interesting research project for a health psychologist. It is so tied up with feelings, traditions and attitudes to authority."

-yup you are right that is why we get those big bun fights on MN. I agree with what you said above too.

If they would only put MN in charge for a week we could have all this sorted out in no time.