If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 $$ ... Because it doesn't "contains all the nutrition your baby needs" for the first two years. After 6 months, solid food needs to be introduced, and breastmilk cannot be the sole source of food for much longer. Anne, who doesn't see any wrong in this message either! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
FazBeta wrote in message
news On 30 Apr 2006 12:13:41 -0700, "Brookben" wrote: why didn't they say 'at least for the first 2 years' if it weren't simply to discourage breastfeeding. If a mommy stops at 6 months, she would still need to use formula until 12, so their pockets would still be filled with $$ ... 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/ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
"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"? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
"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) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
For someone who is insisting we are too picky over the Nestle comments,
you sure are picky... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
10 tips for nutrition (by Nestle)
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
50% people have dirty yellow teeth! Find Tips To Whiten Your Teeth | [email protected] | General | 0 | March 25th 06 06:02 AM |
Beyond the Office [Internet Tips: Keep the Web Safe for All Ages - 09/06/2005] | Ablang | General | 0 | September 8th 05 06:59 AM |
Tips and Tricks for Introducing Solids to Your Baby | Gary Hendricks | General | 34 | October 13th 04 10:09 PM |
nestle questions | elizabeth emerald | Breastfeeding | 2 | March 19th 04 09:50 PM |
nestle question - premier ambient products | j rickman | Breastfeeding | 2 | January 15th 04 07:54 PM |