Don't rush to mush - why do we measure our babies' worth by such spurious things?

I've been meaning to post on this for a few days. In fact, since I read this Telegraph article.

In a nutshell, the Government in the UK is launching a campaign to urge parents not to begin weaning babies too soon, and to look out for signs that the baby is physically ready, which includes them being able to sit up.

This is not something invented by the Government. It is Baby-Led Weaning (BLW) although the Government doesn't use the phrase.

The thinking behind BLW is that babies are not developmentally ready to start eating solid food until they can sit, not because they can sit, but because sitting indicates that other, internal, changes have taken place which means their digestive system will be able to cope.

You can read more on BLW by doing a search, but it was invented (in the sense that it was named and some thinking was set out about it, as I'm sure it has been around for longer) by Gill Rapley whose website is here http://www.rapleyweaning.com/

As soon as I read about BLW it made perfect sense to me. It seems obvious that babies who cannot sit, and have to be propped up, aren't ready for solid food, and it equally makes sense to me that once they are ready to eat solids, then those can actually be solid, and not mushed up foods.

But the article accuses the Government of being a 'Nanny state' which I find interesting. And so does this one from the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231529/Dont-rush-mush-nanny-minister-Andy-Burnham-tells-breast-feeding-mothers.html

Since when was it being a nanny state to advise people of something perfectly sensible? It may well go against quite a few generations of thinking, but the weaning goalposts have been moving for some time.

Once, people weaned at just a few weeks old, then at 12 weeks, then at four months - and that is where the thinking has stayed until now.

But the main reason behind wanting babies to be weaned - and this is perfectly illustrated in the Daily Fail, sorry Mail, piece, is our obsession with wanting babies to fit in with parents' lives rather than the other way round, for them to be 'sleeping through the night' and doing something more convenient than wating a bit of breast's best every few hours (or more).

Here's the excerpt (my bold):

Clare Byam-Cook, a former midwife who has taught thousands of women - including celebrities such as Kate Winslet and Natasha Kaplinsky - how to feed their babies, described much of the advice as 'nonsense'.
She said that milk alone satisfies few babies of six months and introducing solids will help them - and their parents - sleep through the night.
'It really makes me cross that Andy Burnham can stand up and say things like solids should be delayed until six months without checking if it is realistic,' she said.
'A lot of this advice comes from UNICEF who are giving the same advice to the Third World.
'If giving a bit of formula or a bit of solids before six months makes a happy baby sleep through the night and gain weight as it should, you are not creating a problem, you are creating a happy family unit.'

Here is the crux - our obsession with making babies sleep through the night. Now, I'm glad she used the word 'make, because that is exactly what we try to do. Small babies are not developmentally designed to sleep through the night (which anyway is defined by UK health professionals as a five-hour stretch), and many will wake for feeds during the night because they have small stomachs, and because breastmilk is digested quickly so they are soon ready for more.

Yes, some young babies do sleep for long periods, but many more don't, and there is nothing wrong with these babies.

But so obsessed are we with making babies sleep through the night, not to mention get on feeding schedules that are nice and convenient for the mum, that we try and force babies to achieve milestones before they are ready.

Using solid food to make a baby sleep through the night is ridiculous. The reason a baby should be given solids is because they need the nutrition from it, because breastmilk is no longer enough, and the World Health Organisation (hear this, former midwife Clare?) the WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION says babies should be exclusively breastfed for six months, and have breastmilk in their diets until they are two years old.

Wow. Compare that to most first-world babies who might be lucky enough to be breastfed, but won't be by six weeks, and if they are, they almost definitely won't be by five months - studies have found that only three per cent of women are exclusively breastfeeding at that stage.

'A lot of this advice comes from UNICEF who are giving the same advice to the Third World,' bleats Clare.

And your point is what, Clare? That the best thing for babies in the third world is not the best thing for those here? That babies here deserve worse treatment than third-world babies? That first-world babies somehow develop more quickly and can eat solid food far earlier than their third-world counterparts?

Does any of that even begin to make sense? No. Babies the world over develop at the same rate. Breastmilk is the best nutrition for them, for six months exclusively, and for a further 18 months after that, along by then with other foods, presented in a solid and not mushy state.

So the accusations of nanny state make me laugh as much as they make me sad. The Government tells parents all kinds of things all the time, but it becomes 'nanny state' when it is something the majority of parents don't want to hear - because they might have to inconvenience themselves and carry on breastfeeding, and actually let their children's physical development tell them when they are ready, instead of beating little tarquin or Tyrone down the road, who otherwise might be a 'better' baby by eating solids and sleeping 'through the night' sooner.

Blimey.

Personally, I want the Little Lady to develop at her own pace, eat solids in her own time, and give me joy because she is who she is, not because she has done something quicker, sooner or 'better' than someone else's baby.

Call me weird, but I think this is far healthier than rushing babies into things they aren't ready for just because it suits us adults better.