Friday, January 14, 2001 the British Medical Journal published an article that calls into question the WHO recommendation to breastfeed exclusively for 6 months (the article can be downloaded for free here ).
The media, in Italy and elsewhere, have taken this article and are spreading the questionable message in a way that might confuse the mothers and families with a consequent reduction in the percentage of women who exclusively breastfed for six months, the period recommended in Italy by the Ministry of Health and numerous professional associations. The daily La Stampa, for example, the title "Too many feeds are bad" when there is no research and no researcher in the world, not even the authors of the British, who can demonstrate damage from breastfeeding.
It is curious that arouse much interest the articles that lead to breast-feed less, and do not cause the slightest stir in the large number of studies showing that, even in the affluent West, children fed with formula milk or weaned too early with solid foods run the risk of contracting many diseases, numerous infections to obesity, with high costs for the individual, family, health system, society and the environment. It will not be over-reverence of multinational companies and their advertising?
is just as curious as best practice to protect the health of our children at no cost to pass quietly.
An example? The article in the British Medical Journal has serious concerns among others the risk of anemia in children exclusively breastfed until 6 months.
The topic "iron" and "anemia" is in vogue lately, as evidenced by the advertising campaigns of baby food.
But not everyone knows that to effectively increase the reserves of iron to prevent anemia and a baby just wait a couple of minutes before cutting the umbilical cord at delivery. A practice totally free, risk free, and that makes it unnecessary for most children, the use of iron fortified foods (with all due respect to those who produce them).
Who takes care of health should inform parents that the indication of the so-called weaning age (the correct term is "complementary feeding" as it is, in fact, to introduce appropriate foods at the age of the child, continuing breast-feeding ) is a generic reference: it is, in fact, public health recommendations that are valid at the level of the general population.
Luckily, our children do not read either the recommendations or the articles in the British Medical Journal, but you know how to adjust according to their stages of development and their nutritional needs: every mother and every child's doctor or other health professional, they know that there are kids who are ready to add other foods to breastmilk before 6 months (although there are very few children are ready at 4 months), as there are only 6 months are not yet ready, and then you wait for the 7 or 8 months, continuing to offer without forcing, healthy, safe food.
The introduction of other foods in addition to breast milk is one of the many stages of child development, and to walk or talk as there is great variability from one child to another, not all children are walking at 12 months but a parent does not care if his son does not walk at that age.
Why not send the same serenity as opposed to?
Perhaps because, unfortunately, there are huge economic interests behind, articles and research, and often driven to art. Why
the article in the British Medical Journal and the way in which the media do have water?
is presented as a "new study", which is not, being simply personal opinion of the authors based on a reading of their published articles for many years. Among other authors who have chosen not say how the articles discuss, what qualities are, and how strong their arguments.
Three of the four authors of the article, Mary Fewtrell, Alan Lucas and David Wilson, said they had received funding from industries of baby food, not for this article, but for their research and other activities. This certainly does not make them above suspicion.
The authors do not question the superiority of breastfeeding over artificial feeding, nor the recommendation to continue breastfeeding after the introduction of complementary foods, up to 2 years or more as stated in the WHO, or until when mother and baby wish as stated in the Ministry of Health. The authors
only bring into question the average age of first introduction of food in a breastfed baby. They claim that the WHO recommendation (6 months) is based on a few certainties: 18 studies, of which only two randomized controlled trials, that is the kind that offers greater certainty.
But to question the evidence WHO provided the authors cite a dozen articles published after 2001, ie after the recommendations, however, none of which offers greater security than the 18 studies cited by WHO. Indeed, many of these studies are weaker than the previous ones, and some even bring grist to the mill of the WHO. The authors cite
then, incorrectly, two randomized controlled trials currently under way in Britain, as if to prove that if you do these studies, it is because there are doubts about the WHO recommendations. But it makes no sense to cite studies have not yet been completed or published in support of their views as they do not even know what conclusions you will. Without
bring any evidence, The article suggests that a delayed (6 months) introduction of complementary foods could lead to obesity.
According to the authors, it is better to anticipate the tastes of new flavors, especially those typical bitter vegetables, to accustom the child to appreciate and accept and then later with age, a varied diet. The authors forgot to mention that the breastfed child (and before that during pregnancy) has already experienced all these flavors, which pass into breast milk (and in the amniotic fluid). Furthermore, obesity could be due to factors independent from feeding and its duration: the risk associated with junk foods and sugary drinks (products from the same multinational companies that produce food for children) has been known for many years!
Bringing in support of their argument in the original articles that already have their results as preliminary and in need of confirmation, the authors also suggest that a delayed (6 months) introduction of complementary foods may increase the incidence of allergies and celiac disease. This is only hypothesis.
The European Society of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Pediatric Nutrition had already discussed the possibility of celiac disease in late 2009 and had considered the evidence is insufficient to provide certainty. As for the evidence regarding allergies, it is also in this case assumptions, the rest linked to the fact that it still ignores the source allergies.
Items such as the British have the unique capacity to create confusion among parents and are likely going to benefit only those who produce food for children, since it allows one to gain a considerable slice of the market, namely that of children between 4 and 6 months.
Journalists and media should independently investigate the topic by other interests, before contributing to the confusion.
network can be found in many other comments on this article, among which we mention those of rapid responses on the same site of the British Medical Journal and :
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=olnuq9dab & , et = 1104253701666 & s = 35 & e = 00111ecLD0mzS4wMXBb9Ab734ps0SA0cik_TV26_JlXgTjmu0Ypu_DCIAMjXRBRLdCduGtb0gOm0pB0wezqKm9n6kH6px9YXgxICPrghqtxhtpD9An7swsCQZD9-a1DffTEihwS7OFhvoSgkgGPdP55zA ==
http://www.analyticalarmadillo.co.uk/2011/01/starting-solids-facts-behind-todays.html
Source: IBFAN Italy
www.ibfanitalia.org
MAMI Movement Breastfeeding Italian www.mami.org PDF Download the Press
0 comments:
Post a Comment