Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Analysis

Six months of exclusive breast feeding: how good is the evidence?

BMJ 2011; 342 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5955 (Published 13 January 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;342:c5955

Rapid Response:

Re:Poor evidence for risk of anaemia

I agree completely with what is said in this post. One thing that
puzzles me is that Lucas's infant feeding text states that the evidence
about iron and cognitive development is "incomplete". And Lucas expressed
concern only about BF babies over 6 months who are getting solids of low
iron bioavailability, plus possibly SGA babies under 6 months (whose
postnatal growth is usually monitored). He expressed no concern about
exclusively breastfed babies under 6 months, as all research to date shows
little evidence of any deficits, due to the transport factors that assure
80% bioavailability of breastmilk iron (reduced by added solids). So what
causes (Fewtrell and) Lucas to raise this iron issue at all in a paper
discussing lowering the age for solids from 6 to 4 months? And what solids
would be safe?

Iron was a major 1980s competitive formula marketing theme, and it
seems to me that some of the mythology created then still lingers, and
will for as long as references are not critically checked. I suppose this
is not surprising given the massive worldwide resources used in the
industry campaigns. Ironically, every month not fully breastfeeding will
increase a mother's risk of anaemia as her menses will return!

Competing interests: No competing interests

21 January 2011
Maureen K Minchin
historian, author
independent