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

Original poster

Boots baby porridge says from four months - why is this allowed?

35 replies

Stefka · 23/04/2008 09:23

I started weaning DS at five months - something I now regret. One of the foods I picked up for him to try was boots organic porridge which I thought would be nice for him and has from 4 months written in big letters across the top.

Why are they allowed to do that? If we are not meant to be weaning until six months? Also I looked at the ingredients and it has gluten, wheat and milk in it - aren't those the foods that it is really important for babies not have early?

I hate that I gave my DS this. I am glad I only did it a couple of times.

OP posts:

MrsBadger · 23/04/2008 09:28

cause they're a bunch of profiteering wankers it's not actually illegal

MrsTittleMouse · 23/04/2008 09:30

They usually have "ask your health visitor about weaning" written on the packet to cover themselves. I'm surprised though, as the brands that I used had the foods split into two - from 4 months for gluten-free and from 6 months for things like pasta.
I think that 4 months is the absolute minimum and 6 months is recommended, but then it's so dependent on the individual child isn't it? I'm sorry that you regret weaning early, by the way. Why is it that you feel so bad?

Original poster

Stefka · 23/04/2008 09:37

Just reading info on here about how it is bad for the babies health etc.

Can't see anything on the box about talking to a HV.

OP posts:

snooks · 23/04/2008 09:41

A hv said to me once that they (the hvs)recommend 6 months for weaning because they realise that a lot of parents will wean earlier than that ie 4-5 months, so if they recommended 4 months parents would start at say, 3 months....hmmmm.

Sorry, know that's not strictly relevant to the thread title.

morethanmum · 23/04/2008 09:41

It's all a bit of guesswork surely? WHO says 6 months but that's not necessarily for developed countries. We moved and my HV here was appalled I'd waited til 6 mths with ds3, whereas in the old place they insisted on it. BTW dd (9) was brought up on jars from 3 mths and is slim and gorgeous with no health problems except hayfever.

Monkeybird · 23/04/2008 09:43

Stefka,

almost ALL stage 1 baby food says suitable from 4 months. I believe people are campaigning to have this changed - was brought up in the discussion with Alan Johnson last week...

Monkeybird · 23/04/2008 09:44

Sorry, but HVs giving bad and wrong weaning advice is not a surprise. It just is better for babies to wait until 6 months.

morethanmum · 23/04/2008 09:47

Why though? I can't find anything concrete about this.

Original poster

Stefka · 23/04/2008 09:53

My HV said I had to choices in dealing with DS not sleeping. Either give some baby rice or leave him to cry. I didn't want to leave him to cry.

OP posts:

Monkeybird · 23/04/2008 09:59

here you go morethanmum, Department of health fairly definitive I think.

morethanmum · 23/04/2008 10:02

Monkeybird - how funny, I've just saved this after going away to try to find something on it! Thanks tho - do you know what the new research is? Only asking as dd is the most healthy, and the others are all fussy, allergic types who were weaned later. Everything changes all the time (mmr/ weaning etc) so it's quite hard to know what to believe.

MrsTittleMouse · 23/04/2008 10:02

Oh dear, I am sorry that she said that to you.
We had a similar thing with DD that she had a huge growth spurt at 4 months and was waking every hour to hour and a half at night. I could see the attraction in early weaning then. I suppose that I was lucky that I didn't have a HV at that point (I have a very poor opinion of them too) so I didn't have one pushing weaning at me as the solution to all my problems.
The chances of you damaging your DS are very small though. It may be better to wait, but that doesn't mean that it's poison to wean at 5 months. I'm sure that there are plenty of people on MN that were weaned at 3 months (or even earlier), me included, and we're OK.

benandgerry · 23/04/2008 13:08

The research about risks of solids before 6 months has been around for a while but there hasn't been much publicity till fairly recently.
Kellymom has a really good explanation of how the baby's digestive system matures over 6 - 7 months and becomes ready for food see tinyurl.com/4yuu5

tiktok · 23/04/2008 18:12

The advice doesn't change all the time - it was 4-6 months for about 20 years (internationally and nationally) and then about 10 years ago the international advice changed to 6 mths, which we in the UK followed about five years later.

Hardly mind-spinningly confusing....why do people say it changes all the time?

madcol · 23/04/2008 18:20

DS started on puree at 13 weeks.Took it from a spoon supported in a bumbo.

No regrets; No allergies.

He continued on mainly breast mlk for ages. I agonised about it at the time but can't believe I was so worried about it now.

All babies are different If your baby is born 10lb and gains a a reasonable weight by the time they get to 3-4 months they can be very much bigger than babies smaller at birth and have different appetites too.

constancereader · 23/04/2008 18:25

It's not really about appetite, it's about gut maturity.

Jacanne · 23/04/2008 18:30

Saw a parent at school today giving her small baby one of those horrible fruit tinged water drinks from Boots. Her reasoning was that "It says from 4 months on the jar and he's 16 weeks on Saturday". It is misleading and people believe that if it's printed on a bottle or jar then it must be fine.

madcol · 23/04/2008 19:36

Yes but you can't ban everything that you think is bad for babies/children. As adults we are all different and children are all different. We are at liberty to a certain degree to make decisions for our children. I'm sure there are many things we will all do for our kids that would be frowned on by someone.
My DS was started on food early + did not suffer as a result whatever the response from other parents.

Some people chose to give their children yoghourts with sugar in ( most varities of kids yoghourt) or crisps. I see many children eating very salty foods that wouldn't cross my childs lips. Some such foods are directly targeted as children. Have you read the labels on most M+S foods?

I agree we have the right to be correctly informed and then make decisions based on that information. With the same information we won't all make the same decisions.

I researched early weaning intensively and made a decision. Others make theirs. I suspect comparing children at say 13 you could not pick who was weaned when.

MamaChris · 23/04/2008 19:40

And as if it's not bad enough that the packets of baby food say "from 4 months", my online supermarket delivery came with a free packet of baby food (they must have guessed new baby from the nappy order). Do they just say from 4 months to get people starting as early as possible to boost their profits and then get freebies into people's homes? Surely if this conflicts with Dept of Health advice, they shouldn't be allowed to say 4 months?

tiktok · 23/04/2008 20:15

madcol, who's saying anything about 'banning'?

No one suggests moving the weaning police into people's homes!

You say "I agree we have the right to be correctly informed and then make decisions based on that information. With the same information we won't all make the same decisions."

Precisely. The information is clear, that for the majority of infants, milk alone for 6 mths gives the best health outcomes. You're right - even with that information, parents are at liberty to make their own decisions.

You are wrong in saying that there is no difference at 13 -

This study shows the adverse health effects at age 7, and this one shows the adverse effects of early solids and breastfeeding cessation at age 11-14.

There are several other long term studies which show the lasting effects of feeding choices in infancy.

Original poster

Stefka · 23/04/2008 20:28

I feel like writing to boots. This whole business has really upset me. I want to do what is best for my baby and their product was misleading. I know it was stupid of me to assume that boots had the knowledge on when it is ok to wean but I clearly have been stupid about this whole thing.

OP posts:

madcol · 23/04/2008 20:41

Both studies talk about exclusive breast feeding to 15 weeks don't they? Have I read it wrongly?
It also suggested that the 'damage' caused by very early intro of food was equivalent ( roughly) to that of bottle feeding. But that was to 15 weeks which is very young - under 4 months the advised age ont he cereal etc.

I wouldn't suggest introducing puree as early as I did to everyone - I didn't feel very comfortable with it at the time but it worked for me.

My point is that lots of things may be bad for our children and we should always demand correct information. What we do with that information has to be up to us.

I just feel that making these decisions is hard enough and often these threads can come across as a little puritanical.

FAWKEOFF · 23/04/2008 20:45

when i had DD five years ago, I was told by the HV to wean at 16 weeks....by the time i had DS in 2005 the weaning age had gone to 24 weeks.

madcol · 23/04/2008 20:46

Actually re-reading the original post . I certainly agree that the gluten before 6 months is surprising.
Are people generally against intro of food before 6 months or just the gluten and rptoein-based foods.

When I lookes into this from a medical perspective the impression I got was that after 4 months fruit and veg purees were acceptable but complex carbs ; gluten and protein were not until 6 months.

tiktok · 23/04/2008 22:56

Fawke: The officially-approved (by DoH) guidance has never been 16 or 24 weeks....HVs get things wrong.

Madcol, those studies were done on babies when the guidance was 4 mths, and yes, 15 weeks was the time at which they defined early solids...I don't see what difference that makes to the point I was making, that studies show you can ascertain (if you're doing the right tests) the impact of early solids beyond infancy and childhood. You indicated this was not the case.

Flip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread