or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › An aggravating stuby on MSNBC... what do you think?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

An aggravating stuby on MSNBC... what do you think?

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41071734/ 

post #2 of 15

Bunk.  I saw a different article on the same story that said 3 out of the 4 authors had done research or marketing (I forget which) for infant food companies.  Total conflict of interest.

post #3 of 15
Obviously they need more than breastmilk. That's why our species is extinct. eyesroll.gif
post #4 of 15

Glad someone posted on this...my mom just sent it to me with a "thought you might want to see this" email (along with a caveat that I'm "more informed" on the topic than she).

 

I love my mom, but she still doesn't quite get the whole breastfeeding thing sometimes...rolleyes.gif

post #5 of 15

I just saw this and immediately came here. Talk about wacky findings! I find it poor logic that babies *need* baby food earlier than 6 months. I waited until 7+ months for all FOUR of my boys and they seem just fine. I know others wait even longer and do well with that, too.

 

The only part of it that I found interesting was the idea that babies might be more accepting of bitter tastes (eg., green leafies) earlier on. That might be an argument for starting with spinach as a first food ... I dunno. All four of mine have taken spinach, broccoli, etc (homemade, admittedly), no problem, and I was very cautious about introducing, so probably didn't feed those until 9-10 months at earliest. My big kids eat broccoli, asparagus, and spinach just fine. But refuse almost every yellow vegetable. Go figure!!!!

post #6 of 15

My friend's husband is from Norway and when he came to the United States, despite all the cultural differences, the strangest thing about being here was seeing how many babies there were with bottles in their mouths. They operate a large horse farm and he cares for pregnant mares, assists them with birthing their babies and then cares for mare and foal through the eventual weaning stage. I guess this makes him more aware of the natural feeding of one's young with the mother's own milk....since you cannot just go to the store and buy a can of formula to feed a foal! It is common practice in the industry to always have more than one mare in foal at a time for this specific reason - if for some reason a mare cannot provide, the baby is simply latched to a nurse mare. I guess a simple horse breeder can understand the concept as opposed to the main stream media and their "reports."

 

More aggravating than this "study" are some of the dopey comments from mothers who think it is "stupid" to not start feeding solid foods until six months. SIX MONTHS! Both the "traditional" pediatrician, my nurse practitioner and my two midwives advised not to start with solids until my daughter was a year old! And that's exactly what I did! She has no issue whatsover with her "range of taste" or her health in general for that matter! On the other hand, my 4 year old cousin who was formula fed and started on solids at 5 months will not eat ANYTHING and had nothing but colds and other sicknesses when she was an infant and into the toddler years.

 

 

I like how they point out that it is not suggested that women in undeveloped countries follow this study and how there are deaths in developed countries due to feeding solids too early....so poor people should keep on breastfeeding and the chosen ones should switch to solids - as long as you are smart enough not to choke your kid to death. Good grief!

post #7 of 15

Yes, that's why neither of my boys loves pickles...and DS2, 1 yo, ate up 2 full sours at lunch today! 

 

DH said he saw it and knew I was going to say, "gee, I wonder who paid for that study?  the formula companies?" 

 


Big BS, if you ask me.  Just another reason to pressure unsure moms into shovelling mushy yuck down their babies undeveloped throats.

post #8 of 15

What a ridiculous study. I hope this doesn't influence any mothers who might not do more research on the subject.

post #9 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallMeMommy View Post

Bunk.  I saw a different article on the same story that said 3 out of the 4 authors had done research or marketing (I forget which) for infant food companies.  Total conflict of interest.



Do you happen to remember where you saw the article?  I'd love to be able to point to it to show the conflict of interest.  Thanks!

post #10 of 15

It's at the bottom of the analysis that was published in the BMJ.

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955.full

post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanine123 View Post

It's at the bottom of the analysis that was published in the BMJ.

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955.full



Thanks for the link!

post #12 of 15

Unicef's response that was published the day after this story hit the media.

 

http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/pdfs/unicef_uk_response_to_BMJ_article_140111.pdf

 

And a great breakdown of it.

 

 

 

http://www.analyticalarmadillo.co.uk/2011/01/starting-solids-facts-behind-todays.html

post #13 of 15

Thanks for the great links!  I hadn't seen it discussed much among my friends, so have posted to make sure that the information is out there. 

post #14 of 15

Ditto!  Thanks for the links!

post #15 of 15
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Lactivism
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › An aggravating stuby on MSNBC... what do you think?