LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Kathy Dettwyler <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:06:31 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
I am curious as to why people are so adamant, in the face of so little
evidence, that ALL babies, under ALL circumstances, should be exclusively
breastfed for 6 months?

People continually challenge me when I report the current WHO
recommendations -- even though they are widely known, have remained
unchanged since 1979, are available in all their publications, on their web
site in both English and French, etc.

It would be passing strange if modern humans, being the extremely variable
and adaptable creatures that we are, would all have identical nutritional
needs under all circumstances.  It would be passing strange if a "one size
fits all" recommendation for infant feeding encompassed 100% of the
nutritional needs of all infants.

Read this paragraph of the recommendations carefully:

>After this initial 4-to-6-month period of exclusive breast-feeding,
>children should continue to be breast-fed for up to 2 years of age or
>beyond, while receiving nutritionally adequate and safe complementary
>foods. Starting complementary feeding too early or too late are both
>undesirable. Ideally, the decision when precisely to begin will be made
>by a mother, in consultation with her health worker, based on her
>infant's specific growth and development needs.

Note the part that reads "NUTRITIONALLY ADEQUATE AND SAFE COMPLEMENTARY
FOODS."  It is the case than in some contexts, there are *no* nutritionally
adequate and safe complementary foods.  It is recognized by the WHO and
health workers all over the world that sometimes it is better to delay
solids at the expense of optimal infant growth, because the available solids
are not appropriate.  It still remains the case that the children would grow
better and be healthier if *appropriate* solids were available and started
at 4 months.

Note the last line, which says that ideally, it is the mother, in
consultation with her health worker, who should make the decision about when
to add solids based on her infant's specific growth and development needs.

I fail to see why people argue so strenuously for having an absolute rule
that says no solids til 6 months for all babies, under all conditions.  It
makes no sense.

It also makes no sense to challenge my stating of the WHO recommendations
when they are freely available for anyone to read.  I don't make this stuff
up folks, honest.

Climbing down off the soapbox.

Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
Texas A&M University
Defender of the WHO

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2