Please Contact The Baby Food Companies re 4 Month Labelling

[Indadhanu]

Why do women think babies need food before they are 6 months old??

I'm with Chloe. If I hadn't read stuff like this on BB and the ABA site I wouldn't have a clue when bubs are supposed to start solids... I'd take the labels on baby food to be true and probably start at 4 months.

The question is... why do baby food companies seem to think babies need food from 4 months old?
(well extra 2 months worth of profits of course).

[paradise lost]

The question is... why do baby food companies seem to think babies need food from 4 months old?

Because despite the allergy correlation studies and WHO recommendations (which i believe in this specific case were based on expert opinion rather than systematic evidence-based study review, which is in fact against the WHO's OWN recommendations on how OTHERS should make recommendations) there actually hasn't been overwhelming evidence that giving babies in developed countries solids before six months causes problems in the vast majority. For the few babies with allergies in their families not giving solids MIGHT help reduce their risk factors, but not for all - it isn't direct cause and effect. The recommendation was actually aimed more at the undeveloped world where the water supply and poor quality nutrition means younger babies are at serious risk of illness and/or death the younger they are given food that is not breastmilk. The last study i saw (done in 2000 i think) found that babies in North Africa were on average breastfed for 19 months and offered solids from 4.3months.

There is always a cost benefit balance with government and big business. Those governments which have decided to encourage mothers to follow the BF to six months recommendation have mainly forced FF companies to cease advertising their infant formula (but NOT the follow on formula) to this aim, but big business pay ALOT of taxes, and the government won't anger those companies when they don't have to. If mothers know the WHO recommendation they will not offer solids before 6 months, thus they will not force the companies to change their packaging.

It also comes down to accountability and responsibility. So far NO-ONE has managed to win a court case against a baby food company for harm caused to an infant by being fed solids before 6 months of age. The link isn't strong enough to stand up in court.

[Phteven]

The thing is Bec that there have been numerous studies now and no benefits have ever been found to be associated with the early introduction of solids - except for the baby food companies.
The problems with introducing solids too early aren't just that it's associated with increased risk of a range of allergies. It can also cause nutritional deficiencies in cases where solids replace too many milk feeds and encourage over-eating leading to increased risk of obesity.
It's not just WHO that recomends delaying the introduction of solids. All the state governments in Australia, the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the American College of Pediatrics (to name just a few) also recomend delaying the introduction of solids until 6 months.

[totalbabe77]

Point taken about the WHO. Thanks for pointing that out..but i still feel that as long as my dietitians(and other independent health professionals) recommend bubs start solids at 6 mths(and as Dach said, it definitely doesn't cause harm to delay them until then), my company will recommend our first foods for 6 mths+. This seems to be a very touchy subject, but i don't ever want to be seen as putting profits before bubs health. I guess that the big players in the industry don't see it this way, and probably have their reasons for putting 4m+, but at our recent product launch it was terrifying to see how many parents(i'd say at least 75%) thought bubs started solids at 4 mths..i believe this labelling has alot to do with that, as there clearly is not enough education out there targeted to the majority of parents..

[kristy J]

hmm touchy subject..

to be honest i don't think its heinz's problem, from what i understand they are just saying that its Suitable from 4 months not that you should start from 4 months. its a company out to make money its not an organisation or anything.

It seems to me that all babies are different. some babies may be ready and need food earlier than 6 months and some i think are not ready for anything when they do get to 6 months.

My son is a healthy baby, when he was 4.5 months he would scream when we ate anything and was reaching for our food. (he has sat at the dinner table with us almost every night since birth), he was unsetled, and wanting to drink too much milk more than ever recomended for such a young baby, the diatition actually said that the amount he wanted could affect his kidneys as they couldn't process so much, anyway before giving any food i actually took him to our diatition and 2 different community nurses all recomended me giving him food. he ate with no problems at all, and was a much happier baby.
with my twins i will BF as long as i can if they need food before, on or after the 6 month mark i will judge as individuals and give them what they need.

I think some people are too quick to judge parents who decide to feed early. i will never believe that feeding early can lead to obesidy both my sister and i were fed at 4 months (as people did in the 70's) and we are both healthy people. i think its more what we feed our babies not when that is more important.

[Phteven]

I didn't really start this thread as a place to debate the relative merits of starting solids at differant ages. If you disagree with WHO and the body of scientific research then so be it. It doesn't affect me and you can simply choose not to write to any baby food companies.
If like me you choose to follow WHO recomendations and would like to see ethical labelling then please write to the companies involved and add the contact details of any other companies you see who label their food incorrectly.
And maybe send an email to anyone you think might be interested.

One person can teach ten, ten people can teach a hundred, a hundred people can teach a thousand, a thousand can teach ten thousand. Sun Tzu

[MantaRay]

Kristy, having the labels changed to say "from 6 months" doesn't stop people from giving solids earlier. The problem with the labelling now, is that many people don't know the WHO and AMA recommendations and rely on the labels to decide when to give solids. I have read posts on here from mums who have started solids early but said "but it's ok, I only used the ones that said they were ok from 4 months".

It is ridiculous for a goverment to support the recommendations of leading medical bodies around the world, but then allow companies to make money from labelling which is totally against those recommendations.

Can I also please reiterate Chloe's request to keep the posts on topic. Any further posts which are OT will be removed. This thread is not the place for a debate.

[Neenee Jellybeanie]

One thing i've noticed as well is that the ingredients in some of the baby foods are not suitable for the age range, such as onions and tomatos (acidic and irritating to tiny tums) for 6+ month olds.