DP and I were reading "Rough Guide to Babies", and under the Weaning section, there's a heading "When's the right time to start". I quote:
"Advice on this can be confusing. In 2003, the Dept of Health issued the following statement, bringing its policy into line with the WHO: 'Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended for the first 6 months of an infant's life...' Before that, the information given for many years was to give the first solid food sometime between 4 and 6 months."
All correct so far. But then:
"As with much official advice, the DoH's edict is 'ideal world' advice... Moreover, some authorities believe these recommendations are sensible for the developing world, where education and hygiene make exclusive breastfeeding possibly the safest choice for a baby, but not necessary for a country like the UK... In practice, most parents start to introduce solids at some point between 4 and 6 months."
There follows an example of when ex bf is bad - when the mother has HIV!
Interspersed through the subsequent text are phrases like "it's unwise to wait longer than 6 months", "if your baby has started to wake up, demanding food night after night, you may well decide that this little stomach is ready for something more substantial".
It's carefully worded, factually correct, and avoids presenting the complete reasoning behind 6 months. The underlying message is don't listen to the current advice, introduce food earlier. Now DP is saying "but the book says that's why ds (4mo) is waking up so often - it says he needs it for iron - why should we wait till 6mo?"
How do they get away with printing advice inconsistent with DoH guidelines?