Another option is to stay out of the doctor’s office altogether, unless your baby gets sick. My third baby will have her first visit for her 1-yr checkup. I see what you mean, but the fact is that no one is MAKING moms take their baby to the doc. For us, we have chosen to educate ourselves as much as we can, and we simply ignore out-of-date advice. Actually, if my doc was offering out-of-date advice, I would start searching for a new doc.

I don’t think so on the last point as the data is the same for the UK and we all have the same access to health visitors, doctors etc.

QUOTE: clearly many, many parents in the States are not aware of the 6 month recommendation (or the importance of it) and may therefore be more likely to listen to “suggestions” from infant food manufacturers like Nestle.

I think it comes down to not understanding the importance – here in the UK most mums I speak to are aware of the guideline, but have a reason why there’s was the hungry/advanced/non sleeping/refluxy/now gaining enough weight/gaining too much weight etc etc (delete as appropriate) baby that is the exception. Plus of course lots of family, friends and non evidence based parenting forums (a HUGE parental influence) all are full of people with stories of how early they had to do solids and comments such as “the guidelines are only for breastfed babies” or “my health visitor says the guidelines only apply to the third world” or “guidelines aren’t worth the paper as they change every two minutes, mummy knows best” etc etc etc (I could fill a page on why the guidelines should be ignored according to forums!)

Sit this alongside the masses of health visitors who still suggest solids for infants below 6 mths (as per your paediatricians) and it’s no wonder parents aren’t listening.

What in my opinion the labelling does, is serve to normalise that enough infants need solids pre 6 months to put it on their jars. Parents think that if it could harm their baby to give solids at 4 mths – the manufacturers wouldn’t be allowed to put from 4mths on the label! If the labels all said 6mths plus, I think the number of parents that would buy them for younger infants would certainly plummet. Even those who thought “but it’s only carrot” are likely to on the whole presume there was a reason it said 6mths plus and think twice about buying it.
Calculate this drop in sales in terms of profit – and you have the reason baby food companies are going to be as reluctant as possible to change the age suitability. I honestly think it will only happen when it becomes a legal requirement (or they are in a position of being forced)

The full article can be found here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/122/Supplement_2/S91

So, although many who have commented here have indicated that they personally would not be affected by product labelling and/or other educational information that suggests beginning solids before 6 months, clearly many, many parents in the States are not aware of the 6 month recommendation (or the importance of it) and may therefore be more likely to listen to “suggestions” from infant food manufacturers like Nestle.

Nestle’s answer said:

“Nestlé fully supports the May 2001 WHA Resolution 54.2 which changed the recommended duration of exclusive breastfeeding from 4 – 6 month to 6 months, thereafter introducing complementary foods while recommending continued breast feeding for as long as possible.”

However, its websites around the world either specifically recommend a ton of foods to introduce at 4 months, provide contradictory information (say 6 months in one place, 4 to 5 months in another) or just leave out the age recommendation altogether and focus on milestones which might not be the right milestones to be focusing on.

My issue is that Nestle is saying one thing and doing another.

My husband was just diagnosed with Celiac and we have an 8 month old who was just weaned due to medical issues on my part. While my son was exposed to gluten through my breastmilk, our pediatrician has advised treating gluten like a common allergy food (say, strawberries or nuts) and not introducing any as solids into his diet until he is at least a year old (that is when babies’ immune systems are more developed, I believe). The current AAP guidelines even say no wheat until 12 months, regardless of whether a parent actually has Celiac or not, and I don’t see either of these papers suggesting anything different.

The second reads: When all aspects of health are taken into account, the recommended duration of exclusive breastfeeding and age of introduction of solids were confirmed to be 6 months, but no later.

Again I would like to see the papers studied for review, as finding any which clearly study babies exclusively breastfed for 6mths seem very few and far between (if any?!). The criteria included in “breastfed” is usually that they have had some breastmilk – could be a day! But this has to skew data…

QUOTE The Israeli guidelines say it’s not harmful and there is an advantage to preventing celiac when the baby is still breastfed. If you wait six full months to introduce the gluten, there is a greater chance the baby will have weaned. END QUOTE

I’m a bit confused by what you mean – a breastfed baby who has a mum consuming gluten, would be exposed from birth! I can see the logic for formula fed infants who have zero exposure, but don’t understand how this relates to breastfed.

Whether it’s formula or solids – either introduced before gut closure IMPO pose a risk due to the changes they provoke within the gut.