Editorial benefits and harms
I have no view on whether infants are better nourished via
introducing solids at four or at six months, but I am bemused at the BMJ's
publication of Fewtrell et al's paper.
Addressing a patently bio-psycho-social topic from a purely
biological perspective, Fewtrell et al refute weak evidence for a move to
6 months' EBF with equally weak evidence for a return to four.
It is hard to see the scientific point of a publication concluding so
much on the basis of so little in so politically and commercially
sensitive an area.
Competing interests: No competing interests