10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)

On 30 Apr 2006 12:13:41 -0700, "Brookben"
wrote:

why didn't they say 'at least for the first 2 years' if it weren't
simply to discourage breastfeeding. If a mommy stops at 6 months, she
would still need to use formula until 12, so their pockets would still
be filled with $$ ...

Because it doesn't "contains all the nutrition your baby needs" for
the first two years. After 6 months, solid food needs to be
introduced, and breastmilk cannot be the sole source of food for much
longer.

Anne, who doesn't see any wrong in this message either!

FazBeta wrote in message
news
On 30 Apr 2006 12:13:41 -0700, "Brookben"
wrote:

why didn't they say 'at least for the first 2 years' if it weren't
simply to discourage breastfeeding. If a mommy stops at 6 months, she
would still need to use formula until 12, so their pockets would still
be filled with $$ ...

Because it doesn't "contains all the nutrition your baby needs" for
the first two years. After 6 months, solid food needs to be
introduced, and breastmilk cannot be the sole source of food for much
longer.

You're referring to this part of the message, which is true:

"Breast milk is the perfect food for a baby, it contains all the
nutrition your baby needs for the six months"

And Brookben is referring to this part of the message which is false, or at
best misleading:

"Health authorities recommend that you breastfeed your baby
for at least six months if possible."

Respectable health authorities have recommended babies be breastfed for at
least a year for some time now, and more recently the WHO has recommended
they be BF for at least two years.
It's a common trick to include *some* accurate information in a passage
which has the deliberate intent to mislead, because it lends more
credibility to it.


--
Amy
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/
My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/

"Mum of Two" wrote in message
...
FazBeta wrote in message
news
On 30 Apr 2006 12:13:41 -0700, "Brookben"
wrote:

why didn't they say 'at least for the first 2 years' if it weren't
simply to discourage breastfeeding. If a mommy stops at 6 months, she
would still need to use formula until 12, so their pockets would still
be filled with $$ ...

Because it doesn't "contains all the nutrition your baby needs" for
the first two years. After 6 months, solid food needs to be
introduced, and breastmilk cannot be the sole source of food for much
longer.

You're referring to this part of the message, which is true:

"Breast milk is the perfect food for a baby, it contains all the
nutrition your baby needs for the six months"

And Brookben is referring to this part of the message which is false, or
at best misleading:

"Health authorities recommend that you breastfeed your baby
for at least six months if possible."

Respectable health authorities have recommended babies be breastfed for at
least a year for some time now, and more recently the WHO has recommended
they be BF for at least two years.
It's a common trick to include *some* accurate information in a passage
which has the deliberate intent to mislead, because it lends more
credibility to it.

It's been said before, but I also don't see what's wrong with the original
statement...
With the information I had always been given, I was told the best to do is
breastfeed for at least 6 months, as breastmilk is ALL that a baby needs for
the first 6 months of life. At that point, an introduction of solids (baby
cereals, baby foods, etc) is in order, as then a baby will get the proper
nutrition needed to grow and develop - still along with nursing.
The wording in the original statement could be read different ways... The
first part of the statement, which seems to be the common part everyone's
neglecting, says "Breast milk is the perfect food for a baby, it contains
all the nutrition your baby needs for the six months, with the added bonus
of antibodies and other properties important to baby's health and
development." That right there, IMO is as true as can be. All a baby needs
for the first 6 months is milk, and yes, breast milk has the extra bonus of
antibodies - not added antibodies, natural ones that are found in a mother's
milk.
In the case of the statement for breastfeeding for at least 2 years, I'm
sure an exclusively breast fed child at age 2 would be sickly and
underweight and under developed. Maybe some would have been happier if that
statement had added, "At 6 months of age, offering a variety of
easy-to-digest and pureed solids should be offered, along with breast milk
is recommended"?

On 2006-05-01 20:57:14 +0800, "xkatx" said:


"Mum of Two" wrote in message
...
FazBeta wrote in message news
On 30 Apr 2006 12:13:41 -0700, "Brookben"
wrote:

why didn't they say 'at least for the first 2 years' if it weren't
simply to discourage breastfeeding. If a mommy stops at 6 months, she
would still need to use formula until 12, so their pockets would still
be filled with $$ ...

Because it doesn't "contains all the nutrition your baby needs" for
the first two years. After 6 months, solid food needs to be
introduced, and breastmilk cannot be the sole source of food for much
longer.

You're referring to this part of the message, which is true:

"Breast milk is the perfect food for a baby, it contains all the
nutrition your baby needs for the six months"

And Brookben is referring to this part of the message which is false,
or at best misleading:

"Health authorities recommend that you breastfeed your baby
for at least six months if possible."

Respectable health authorities have recommended babies be breastfed for
at least a year for some time now, and more recently the WHO has
recommended they be BF for at least two years.
It's a common trick to include *some* accurate information in a passage
which has the deliberate intent to mislead, because it lends more
credibility to it.

It's been said before, but I also don't see what's wrong with the
original statement...
With the information I had always been given, I was told the best to do
is breastfeed for at least 6 months, as breastmilk is ALL that a baby
needs for the first 6 months of life. At that point, an introduction
of solids (baby cereals, baby foods, etc) is in order, as then a baby
will get the proper nutrition needed to grow and develop - still along
with nursing.
The wording in the original statement could be read different ways...
The first part of the statement, which seems to be the common part
everyone's neglecting, says "Breast milk is the perfect food for a
baby, it contains all the nutrition your baby needs for the six months,
with the added bonus of antibodies and other properties important to
baby's health and development." That right there, IMO is as true as
can be. All a baby needs for the first 6 months is milk, and yes,
breast milk has the extra bonus of antibodies - not added antibodies,
natural ones that are found in a mother's milk.
In the case of the statement for breastfeeding for at least 2 years,
I'm sure an exclusively breast fed child at age 2 would be sickly and
underweight and under developed. Maybe some would have been happier if
that statement had added, "At 6 months of age, offering a variety of
easy-to-digest and pureed solids should be offered, along with breast
milk is recommended"?

Breastmilk is needed as the majority of a baby's diet until at least
age 12 months though, only at 6 months other foods are added to
compliment the diet. This makes it sound like you breastfeed until 6
months, full stop. Of course then you go buy some Nestle formula
No one is saying that a 2 year old should be exclusively breastfed,
either.

Jo
--
Woman, Wife, Mother, Midwife

Notchalk wrote:
On 2006-05-01 20:57:14 +0800, "xkatx" said:


"Mum of Two" wrote in message
...
FazBeta wrote in message news On 30 Apr 2006 12:13:41 -0700, "Brookben"
wrote:

why didn't they say 'at least for the first 2 years' if it weren't
simply to discourage breastfeeding. If a mommy stops at 6 months, she
would still need to use formula until 12, so their pockets would still
be filled with $$ ...

Because it doesn't "contains all the nutrition your baby needs" for
the first two years. After 6 months, solid food needs to be
introduced, and breastmilk cannot be the sole source of food for much
longer.

You're referring to this part of the message, which is true:

"Breast milk is the perfect food for a baby, it contains all the
nutrition your baby needs for the six months"

And Brookben is referring to this part of the message which is false,
or at best misleading:

"Health authorities recommend that you breastfeed your baby
for at least six months if possible."

Respectable health authorities have recommended babies be breastfed for
at least a year for some time now, and more recently the WHO has
recommended they be BF for at least two years.
It's a common trick to include *some* accurate information in a passage
which has the deliberate intent to mislead, because it lends more
credibility to it.

It's been said before, but I also don't see what's wrong with the
original statement...
With the information I had always been given, I was told the best to do
is breastfeed for at least 6 months, as breastmilk is ALL that a baby
needs for the first 6 months of life. At that point, an introduction
of solids (baby cereals, baby foods, etc) is in order, as then a baby
will get the proper nutrition needed to grow and develop - still along
with nursing.
The wording in the original statement could be read different ways...
The first part of the statement, which seems to be the common part
everyone's neglecting, says "Breast milk is the perfect food for a
baby, it contains all the nutrition your baby needs for the six months,
with the added bonus of antibodies and other properties important to
baby's health and development." That right there, IMO is as true as
can be. All a baby needs for the first 6 months is milk, and yes,
breast milk has the extra bonus of antibodies - not added antibodies,
natural ones that are found in a mother's milk.
In the case of the statement for breastfeeding for at least 2 years,
I'm sure an exclusively breast fed child at age 2 would be sickly and
underweight and under developed. Maybe some would have been happier if
that statement had added, "At 6 months of age, offering a variety of
easy-to-digest and pureed solids should be offered, along with breast
milk is recommended"?

Breastmilk is needed as the majority of a baby's diet until at least
age 12 months though, only at 6 months other foods are added to
compliment the diet. This makes it sound like you breastfeed until 6
months, full stop. Of course then you go buy some Nestle formula
No one is saying that a 2 year old should be exclusively breastfed,
either.

Jo
--
Woman, Wife, Mother, Midwife

Argh. I'm going to try this, too, although I'm not sure if I can help
clarify any better than the pp's have done.

First of all, by saying that breastmilk has the "added bonus of
antibodies, etc" it is implying that you don't really *need* those
antibodies, but they are nice as a bonus. Well, yeah, obviously plenty
of babies do survive on formula without natural antibodies (or whatever
the proper term is), but it should be the baseline assumption that
babies should be able to get these antibodies and should only put up
with using formula if they need to. Instead, they are implying formula
as the norm.

Secondly, I agree that they are making it sound like you breastfeed
until 6 months, then stop. There is *nothing* in their statement that
talks about supplementing with solids after 6 months. There is nothing
about "exclusively breastfeeding until 6 months and then supplementing
with solids."

True, "at least 6 months" is included in a recommendation to bf for 1
year and longer (AAP guidelines, iirc) and 2 years (WHO). However, as
we all know, it's also misleading.

(Fwiw, lately I've been thinking that the antibody issue is probably
the most convincing argument I can think of for bf vs ff, since
convenience depends on the bf relationship and lifestyle issues.)

Irene

Following up on myself - not that I expect a formula company to publish
something that makes their own product look bad. I'm just trying to
help explain *why* and how the information is objectionable, since some
people were questioning it.

Irene

Why do people get hung up on 'exclusive' breastfeeding? Of course no
one is insinuating anyone would be exclusively breastfeeding at 2 years
old... *major eye roll*. Just like no one would insinuate that a baby
should be exclusively formula fed at 12 months. But, it IS a
misleading statement to say that breastfeeding is the perfect food for
the first 6 months, when EVERYONE knows is the perfect food for the
first 2 years, at least. That does not, in any way, suggest that there
aren't any other foods to be introduced, for crying out loud.

It's not like the cow-milk companies were paying per word - they said
enough to mislead, but not enough to outright defraud, when they could
have - just as easily - linked to the WHO.

"Brookben" wrote in message
But, it IS a misleading statement to say that breastfeeding is the perfect
food for
the first 6 months, when EVERYONE knows is the perfect food for the
first 2 years, at least.

But it is the perfect food for the first six months and then you add solids.
It is not the perfect food (by itself ) for two years because the child
needs more.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

For someone who is insisting we are too picky over the Nestle comments,
you sure are picky...

www.bobrow.net/kimberly/birth/BFLanguage.html