Kathy Dettwyler wrote:

>It certainly wasn't the "extended nursing" that caused the speech delays,
>as children all over the world nurse for 2-3-4-5 years and all learn to
>speak on time.  I would be very concerned about the neurological health of
>a child who would put up with not getting to eat any solid foods until he
>was two years old.  "Normal" babies will be demanding food between 6 months
>and 12 months, and I don't see how it would be possible to keep solid foods
>away from a normal, healthy child of this age.  Why did the mother do this?
> There may indeed be some fallout from not introducing solid foods -- if
>that is in fact the culprit.  And if so, it isn't the extended
>breastfeeding, but rather the lack of solids

In George Wootan's book, _Take Charge of Your Child's Health_, he mentions a
study done in Japan (he doesn't provide the reference citation or I'd pass
it along) on infants who were exclusively breastfed a full two years -- they
came from families with strong histories of allergies -- with no ill effects
at all. I agree that the vast majority of children will become interested
between 6 and 12 months -- even if in an extremely small subset (such as
Cheerios) close to the 12-month mark (talking about my daughter here).
However, I don't know of any evidence that the lack of solids is dangerous.

And, although this is purely anecdotal, my daughter is 26 months old and
extremely healthy despite a diet of 95-99% breastmilk, depending on the day.
I realize this is rare, but I have encountered other healthy BF children
with
similar eating patterns.

Janice Berry
Columbus, OH