Act of Charity

This post isn't easy for me to write.  On different occasions, in reading about other peoples' experiences, I've heard of something that, frankly, angers and saddens me.  It is that sometimes breastfeeding mums are admonished for openly breastfeeding at church, being told that it is an act of charity to others if they will cover or go to another location to breastfeed.  I've been ruminating over this, over the implications of it.  An act of charity to cover or move.  Is it really an act of charity?

For one, it ignores the fact that the child needs to eat when he needs to eat.  He cannot always wait, and it sometimes will create a scene to force the issue.  Yes, some can wait as they get older.  I would expect my four-year-old to wait, for instance, but would not expect the same of an under-two-year-old.

So what about using a cover?  I used a cover with Kieran until he was about 5ish months old, when I got tired of the hassle and he wouldn't tolerate being covered.  I figured out that I could actually be more discreet by nursing without a cover, since I could feed more-or-less instantly and without an obvious indication that I was breastfeeding (the covers ensure no skin is revealed, but make it obvious what you're doing, in my opinion).  I really don't know many children who like being covered to feed, to be honest.  At least not when they're older than a few months' old.

Source

What is it really saying to tell a mother that it is an act of charity to cover or go elsewhere to nurse?  I think it says that many, many people have forgotten the primary purpose of breasts: nourishing a child.  Unintentionally or not (and I try to give the benefit of the doubt and say it is unintentional), it tells mothers that they are not being discreet or modest, I  think.  I can't help but think of Our Lady of La Leche, then.  For a less stubborn or self-assured mum, it could even result in her dropping some breastfeeds or going to a different church (or ceasing to go), none of which are good options.

Finally, is it really an act of charity to cover or move for the sake of the adults who may be uncomfortable?  It would make them more comfortable, but is that the same as being an act of charity towards them?  There are times when we need to be made to feel uncomfortable in order to truly confront something, and this can in fact be an act of charity.  Charity doesn't mean we ignore our issues, or others' issues, but that we help them.  In the case of breastfeeding, I personally don't think covering or moving is an act of charity for others, for it perpetuates the skewed perception of breasts as being strictly provocative and sexual instead of being the normal way mothers nourish and comfort their children.  Again, this doesn't mean purposefully drawing attention to oneself or being belligerent about it, but simply feeding one's child when and as needed.

It should also be noted that not using a cover or moving doesn't mean exposing oneself, either.  Nursing without a cover can be done modestly.  I've stood face-to-face with a priest whilst breastfeeding my daughter, and the priest only commented that she was sleeping, so I don't think it was obvious that she was also breastfeeding.  Or maybe he just didn't care.  I personally have no problem with wearing something that can be easily pulled down at the neck, but another way of doing it is to wear a camisole under a shirt and pull the top shirt up.  While I prefer the former, simply due to ease, I could compromise and do the latter.  Another option is to feed the child in a carrier like a mei tai or wrap, though this is easiest if the child is already in the carrier and is a bit smaller.  I can still do that with Charlotte, but it isn't as easy as it once was, and since I don't usually wear her on my front, it would probably require more time and distraction.

In the end, I just honestly can't see covering or moving to be a true act of charity, for the mother, the child, or the other people.  I know I'm a lactivist, and thus my views will be biased in that direction, though I've tried to think and talk this out with an open mind.  I just wish it weren't an issue at all, especially not in a house of worship.  Our Lady of La Leche, pray for us.

Set Up To Fail

Are parents set up to fail? Sometimes I think so. Or perhaps it's more like there are lots of things out there trying to trip us up or make us think we're failing. It isn't that these people or things are trying to make us fail. I try to think the best of others, so I imagine most are genuinely trying to help. Nevertheless, I think a lot of advice that is given to parents is flawed.

I think parents are also set up to fail by societal expectations of a baby's behaviour. A baby should sleep well, but parents mustn't bed-share. A baby should be quiet, but mustn't be carried/worn all the time or attended to quickly every time. A baby should be breastfed, but please don't show any skin or do that in here. Add to this the fact that many young parents live farther away from their own parents and extended family, and thus don't have the built-in support system that used to be commonplace. Even if they did, though, many of our parents were also sabotaged by bad (but well-meaning) advice. So what do parents do? Some at least read various parenting books that tell them to just follow this routine and your child will be good as gold; if that isn't the case, the blame is put on the parent, not the advice. Or they ask a medical professional, friend, or family member who tells them to do x, y, or z, and/or ignore their own instincts.

That's really the crux of it – we're discouraged from following our instincts, or we don't know how to follow them because we don't see it. Breastfeeding, whilst natural and instinctual to a degree, is also learnt. Our attitudes to it are heavily influenced by our society, meaning that our instincts in this matter are often eroded away long before the baby is born. After the birth, many are then given advice that conflicts with our instincts, thus damaging or completely sabotaging the breastfeedingrelationship. It's no wonder many women stop breastfeeding, for in many ways you really do have to be incredibly obstinate to breastfeed as you wish.

This is also true with baby-training. Because many of us were raised in the era of “Ferberising” and similar methods, where parents were told to ignore their own instincts, many haven't witnessed or experienced instinctual parenting. Then when a child is waking at night, as they do, parents are told to ignore their instincts and “train” the child to sleep. I understand the motivation behind it, I truly do, but I think we're failing ourselves and our children when we follow this.  

As a society, it seems we've forgotten what is normal, namely that babies are meant to wake at night and are meant to be close to mum. This won't lead to them being spoilt brats, they aren't trying to manipulate (even if they vomit or poo or stop crying when they hear you coming). We've forgotten that babies are meant to breastfeed on cue, including during the night, and doing so won't turn them into demanding hellions who expect to receive their every wish immediately. Thankfully this information is being rediscovered and disseminated, so even if parents don't see these behaviours, they can know about them. There's still a long way to go, though.

*Note: I do not think parents who follow that advice are bad parents, but I lament that they've been given incorrect info and undermined in that way.

Adventures in Tandem Nursing

I don't often breastfeed both children at once, but when I do, it's always an adventure.  Kieran sometimes asks for them both to breastfeed together, but more often it's that Charlotte sees Kieran nursing and asks to have milk.  When this happens, she pretty much launches herself over Kieran to latch herself on, crushing Kieran a little in the process.  Because she has a habit of twiddling (which drives me insane), she also keeps putting her hand by Kieran's face.  This results in him pushing her hand away a lot while she continually tries to twiddle.  I feel for him, for Charlotte and I have that same fight all the time, since I don't allow her to twiddle if I can help it.  There's certainly never a dull moment.

Science! Science, I Say!

While making scones I was thinking about how breastfeeding and childbirth have been damaged by the attempt to make them more "scientific".  (yes, I have random thoughts when baking, or any time, really) My train of thought then went to my days of studying archaeology and learning about "New Archaeology" (or Processual Archaeology), wherein some declared that what archaeology needed was to be more scientific.  I find it interesting that these major interests of mine can be united by the fact that all, at one time or another, were under some kind of pressure to conform to a scientific method.  With breastfeeding and childbirth, this took the form of schedules and time limits and various procedures, instead of going with the natural flow of things; with archaeology this took the form of putting archaeology under anthropology and trying to be more scientific in analysing artefacts and an assumption that all aspects of a culture could be analysed through the material record.

Now, science certainly has its place within the study of breastfeeding, childbirth, and archaeology, and the scientific study of these things has led to greater understanding in some ways.  The problem, however, comes in trying to force these things to fit within a certain framework (obviously it's a bit different with archaeology, since we're not talking about a natural biological function but the study of past societies and that study must be thorough and rigorous, but the human element still remains).  Thankfully "new archaeology" was soon criticised for its shortcomings, and thankfully the "scientific" rules for breastfeeding are, in general, no longer in vogue.  We're getting there with childbirth, but there's still a ways to go.

The underlying assumption, really, is that the unpredictability and organised chaos of human systems is somehow deficient and inferior to a purely logical, scientific approach.  Seeing as we are not Vulcans, though, our bodies and societies do not, and will never, conform to a rigid system.  This is part of the beauty of breastfeeding, childbirth, and archaeology, in my opinion.  The way science can, and has, helped in these areas is by giving us greater understanding of them instead of trying to force them to conform to arbitrary standards in the name of "science".

You Know That Doesn't Work, Right?

After I had Charlotte, I was of course asked about contraception on multiple occasions, by midwives and GPs.  I'd respond about Billings, but the response back was more often about breastfeeding, as they misunderstood me to be talking about breastfeeding.  The response, of course, was along the lines of "you know that doesn't work, right?"  Actually, this began in the antenatal classes with Kieran, where the midwives were quick to point out that breastfeeding didn't suppress fertility.  I beg to differ.

The midwives and GPs are correct if one culturally breastfeeds.  In our society, breastfeeding is often scheduled to some degree instead of feeding completely on demand, which often means the child feeds little and often.  Co-sleeping is frowned upon, so many babies are moved into their own rooms after the first 6 months.  Since prolactin levels are highest at night, cutting out night feeds can often bring about the return of fertility.  If a woman is returning to work, fertility is likely to return more quickly, since the child isn't nursing as much.  Dummies are often used, and babywearing isn't all that common.

Seeing  as these things are quite common, I do understand why the midwives and GPs might think that breastfeeding doesn't suppress fertility.  However, fertility is less likely to return with either the Lactional Amenorrhoea Method (LAM) or Ecological Breastfeeding.  There are seven standards for Ecological Breastfeeding:

• Breastfeeding must be the infant’s only source of nutrition – no formula, no pumping, and (if the infant is less than six months old) no solids or water at all.
   
• The infant must be pacified at the breast, not with pacifiers or bottles or by placing a finger in the mouth.
   
• The infant must be breastfed frequently. The standards for LAM are a bare minimum; greater frequency is better. Sucking should include non-nutritive sucking when the infant cues the mother, not just breastfeeding as a means of nutrition. Scheduling of feedings is incompatible with LAM.
   
• Mothers must practice safe co-sleeping as it is the proximity of the child to the mother that increases prolactin.
   
• Mothers must not be separated from their infants. This includes substitutes for mother such as babysitters and even strollers or anything else that comes between mother and physical contact with her child. Babywearing (using cloth carriers) means tactile stimulation between mother and child and increases access to the breast. Any separation from the mother will decrease the efficacy of ecological breast feeding.
   
• Mothers must take daily naps with their infants.
   
• A mother must not have had a period after 56 days post-partum (bleeding prior to 56 days post-partum can be ignored).

Now, these are rather strict rules, but if you follow them, there's less than a 1% chance of falling pregnant in the first 6 months, and 6% before her first post-partum menstruation.  The average return of menses is 14 months.  I can't say I've followed all of these guidelines.  I used a pram with Kieran some of the time and I certainly haven't taken a daily nap with either of them (more often with Kieran than with Charlotte, though).  Kieran was quite a comfort-nurser.  Following the average, I ovulated again around 14 months with Kieran, though I wasn't fertile for a few more months due to a short luteal phase.  While Charlotte doesn't comfort-nurse nearly as much as Kieran did, the fact that I'm tandem-feeding makes up for that.  At nearly 15 months post-partum, I'm still experiencing lactational amenorrhoea.  Far from not working, I'd say that breastfeeding certainly can and does suppress fertility, depending on how you breastfeed.

More Than Food

So often discussions regarding breastfeeding seem to omit the fact that breastfeeding is much more than food.  I see this fact being omitted when people talk about scheduling feeds, feeding in public, nightweaning, etc.

When people talk of scheduling feeds, the underlying assumption is that breastfeeding is purely for food.  I say that's the assumption because you cannot schedule when your child will need to be comforted.  I'm not entirely convinced you can completely schedule when they'll eat, either; I have a general idea of when my children will eat, but nothing is set in stone.  Kieran usually wants to eat after he wakes from a nap and has had his "wake-up milk", but sometimes he doesn't.  Of course, I can't even tell you with absolute certainty when I'll eat.  I laugh that I'm a hobbit, as I'm fairly certain I could easily follow a hobbit's eating schedule.

One rejoinder often heard in conversations about scheduling feeds or nightweaning is that the mother shouldn't let the child use her as a dummy.  Let's think about that one.  A dummy is something that is supposed to replace the breast and allow the child to fulfil his need for suckling away from the mother.  It's a substitute.  Why use a substitute if the mother is available?  Babies need to suck, and biologically this is fulfilled by breastfeeding, for food or comfort.

Perhaps part of this is that many do not recognise comfort-sucking as an actual need for the child.  Comfort is more than just a want for a child, but is a real need.  He needs to know his mother is there.  I participated in a conversation where a parent was asking if his child should nightwean, and another person asked if the child needed to breastfeed or if it was just for comfort.  See the assumption there?  The assumption that breastfeeding for comfort isn't a need?  While our culture may teach this, it just isn't the case.

It's also not true that a child who is comforted in that way will never learn to self-soothe or go to sleep on his own.  I've certainly not found this to be true.  As I've mentioned before, Kieran has always been a comfort-nurser and would still gladly nurse his cares away at times (he doesn't ask for it every time he falls, though).  Even with wanting that physical comforting from me, he's an independent boy who can calm himself down and can fall asleep without nursing to sleep.  He still gets milk before naps & bed, but doesn't fall asleep like that any more.  I say that Charlotte doesn't comfort feed, but that isn't entirely true, as she does breastfeed to sleep (for naps and bed).  She simply doesn't want to breastfeed if she hurts herself or otherwise needs comforting during the day.  I have no fear of her never learning to sleep without breastfeeding, for I know she'll stop that when she's ready.  There are many nights when she'll breastfeed some and then flop down so she's not touching me and fall asleep, and she's tried to put herself down for a nap.  She's making steps towards that, but I'm in no rush.

The conversation about breastfeeding in public also seems to assume that comfort-feeding is irrelevant (since it cannot be predicted), as well as assuming that you can/should schedule your child's feeds.  When Kieran was little, I'd always try to feed him before going to class (yes, he went to my university lectures with me) or Mass or whatnot, but he'd almost always want to eat again at that time.  Perhaps he needed to be comforted when in a larger group of people, most of whom he didn't know.  My choices then were to feed him, leave, or let him scream.  Some children can be held off, but not all.  Since all children are individuals, an arbitrary rule shouldn't be applied.

Ultimately, I think a lot of the debate on this comes from the fact that breastfeeding, sadly, isn't the majority practise here.  The majority bottle-feed, which as a different set of guidelines.  Dummies should be used with bottle-fed babes, since the need to comfort-suck isn't met with the bottle, which is reserved for food.  Because this is what is so often seen, I think a lot of members of society have forgotten what the biological norm dictates: that babies feed often, for short periods of time, for comfort as well as food, and that they breastfeed for over two years, on average.  Hopefully the tide is turning, as more information and support are available for mothers, though unfortunately some still aren't receiving the support and help needed and some healthcare providers continue to disseminate myths.

Breastfeeding in Georgia

I'm sure most people have heard of the inane public indecency ordinance in one Georgia town making it illegal to breastfeed a child over the age of 2 in public.  As you can guess, I'm firmly opposed to such a law, on numerous grounds.  For starters, it's appalling to include breastfeeding in a public indecency ordinance.  I realise they're exempting breastfeeding women from public indecency, provided the child is under the age of 2.  The implication of this, though, is that breastfeeding a child who is even one day over the age of 2 is indecent.  Breastfeeding a child is not indecent, whatever the age of the child!  The World Health Organization recommend breastfeeding for 2 years or beyond.  Breastfeeding past infancy still has great benefits for the child and the mother.

I do know that it's uncommon to see children past the age of 1 breastfeed in public in some parts of the US.  However, this does not mean that children over the age of 1 or 2 shouldn't breastfeed in public, nor does it make it indecent.  As I noted in a previous post, if we want more women to see breastfeeding past infancy as an option, then we need for it to be seen.  I am not saying that in an exhibitionist way, but in the sense that the things we see in our everyday lives shape our perceptions of what is accepted or not.  I don't know breastfeeding mothers who want to be exhibited in that way (on a side note, this is actually why I'm not entirely sure about nurse-ins, because, while I understand the reasoning and sympathise with it, it could make it look like we are exhibitionists, which could harm our cause).

I also wonder if this ordinance could serve to discourage women from breastfeeding in public at all, which could then lead to weaning earlier than they would like.  Would a mother need to carry proof of her child's age?  Or would she be more likely to avoid breastfeeding in public to avoid any potential hassle?  How would someone even know the child's age?  I have a friend whose children are petite; her 2-year-old is roughly the same size as Charlotte is at 14-months.  I'm also sure that there are children larger than Charlotte, since she isn't at the top of the growth charts.

Some Georgia mothers did stage a nurse-in in protest of this ordinance.  I found the city officials' reaction disheartening.  From Fox News:

City officials brushed off the protest, citing other cities with similar rules. 

"You need to check ordinances in other jurisdictions," John Parker, the city manager said. “You’ll find the same verbiage exists in those, too.”

The fact that other cities have similar ordinances does not make it right.  I'm reminded of a quote from Archbishop Fulton Sheen:

"Right is right, even if no one is right. Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is wrong."

Full-Term Breastfeeding in Public

Time to combine two topics that are sometimes seen as controversial in and of themselves: full-term breastfeeding (sometimes called extended breastfeeding) and breastfeeding in public.  If you know me, you know I fully support breastfeeding in public, and I'm still breastfeeding my 3-year-old because he's not ready to wean completely yet, and I'm not going to force him.  I think both of these things should be more widespread, yet I'd given little thought to the logical step of full-term breastfeeding in public as well.  One reason given for promoting breastfeeding in public is to normalise breastfeeding, since the more it is seen, the more it will be accepted.  Would this not also apply to full-term breastfeeding?  I think it would, personally.

I was thinking about this yesterday when Kieran wanted me to come outside with him while he played with his friends.  He then added that he wanted milk outside.  At first I tried to put him off, to tell him that he could have it later, but then I questioned why I was telling him that.  Did I have a good reason?  Not really.  I simply wanted to avoid any comments from the other adults out there (or even from the other kids).  Now, I've breastfed him in public fairly recently, but usually it's around others who are like-minded about breastfeeding, so I've not been nervous.  Yesterday I was a little nervous, but I went ahead and fed him because I reasoned that I couldn't let my nervousness adversely affect him.  I don't want him to think that breastfeeding in public is taboo, because it shouldn't be.  I just hadn't thought about how my attitude and nervousness would affect him like that before.  Perhaps now I won't be so quick to say "no" if the only reason behind the "no" is because we're in public.  And if someone comments or questions, hopefully I'll have the presence of mind to answer respectfully, and with the relevant information on the continued benefits of full-term breastfeeding.

Milk Donation

When Charlotte was somewhere around 4 months old, she developed a habit of pulling off the breast right at let-down, and she'd refuse to drink some more.  At that point, I started expressing some, even though I greatly dislike expressing, purely for my own comfort.  My children don't get bottles, nor did I think of letting Charlotte drink the expressed milk, as I didn't want her to start refusing the breast or for my supply to dip.  She's never been a big comfort-nurser, and I didn't want to tempt fate.  I then tried to convince Kieran to drink the expressed milk, but he wouldn't.  If the idea hadn't been a bit off-putting for my husband, I would've cooked with it.  Actually, if it's just something for the kids and myself, I will cook with it.

As it stood, though. I was expressing fairly large amounts of milk, only for it to go to waste.  I therefore started wondering if there was a milk bank to whom I could donate.  I went to the local LLL meeting around that time, and asked the leader if she knew of one.  She immediately told me the name of the Wirral Mother's Milk Bank and suggested that I contact them, as she'd donated to them before.  They accept donors from all over NW England, and provide that donated milk to the preemies and other infants in NICUs in the various hospitals around the area.  One of my friends had recently given birth to a very premature baby, and so she was on my mind.  I also thought of one of my cousins, who was also born premature.

So I contacted them, and they immediately sent me the information and bottles and information for the blood tests I would need.  I tried to express daily, provided the kids or I weren't unwell, though this didn't always happen, especially as we got closer to Charlotte's birthday.  As I mentioned before, I really dislike expressing milk, but I couldn't see denying those infants the gift of milk, knowing that human milk is better for them, and knowing that mothers of preemies cannot always express (while nearly all women can breastfeed, some have trouble expressing milk - it's really a completely different ballgame).

A lady came to collect the milk on a fortnightly or monthly basis, depending on our schedules and how much I'd been able to express.  The last collection was just prior to Charlotte's birthday.  They stop collecting at that point because the composition of the milk changes as the child gets older.  Obviously it isn't some huge change on the day they turn 1, but I see the reason for the cut-off.  This week, I got a card in the post thanking me for the donation of milk, and informing me that I'd donated 3,350 mL of milk.  I was rather surprised that I'd donated over 3 litres.  I'm very glad I was able to do that, though.

After I started to donate to the milk bank, Human Milk 4 Human Babies (formerly Eats on Feets) was formed.  I've not donated through them, but I will if I find someone in my area needs it.  I think it's wonderful that such a network exists, so women can have access to human milk for their babies when they, for whatever reason, cannot provide it themselves.

Breastfeeding and Iron

I thought I'd expand on this topic in particular, since it seems to be the basis for that study I wrote about before saying that exclusively breastfeeding for 6 months may not be a good thing.  The thing is, in their publication, they mention that infant anaemia could be avoided by increasing the mother's iron stores in pregnancy, delayed cord clamping, and supplementing high-risk infants.  From Kellymom, those who are high-risk are babies born prematurely, babies with low birth weight, babies born to mothers with poorly controlled diabetes, babies fed cow's milk during the first year, and perhaps babies whose mothers are anaemic (this last one hasn't been borne out by medical studies, though).  These are things that can be done without needing to introduce solids before the child is truly ready for them.  In fact, the iron in breast milk is more bioavailable for the infant than the iron in other foods.

It seems to me that the proper way to handle this would be to advise pregnant women to get enough iron, to make delayed cord clamping the normal practise, and to screen/supplement those infants who are at a high risk of becoming anaemic, instead of saying that babies should be given solid foods before they are developmentally ready.  Pregnant women are already screened for anaemia, so this is already a discussion women are having with their care providers.  Delayed cord clamping has been shown to increase the baby's iron stores and thus decrease the chances of anaemia.  While this isn't the norm at the moment (or at least it isn't here, as far as I know), you can talk to your care provider about doing this and the benefits of it.  I know with C my midwives had no problem with waiting for the cord to stop pulsing before cutting it (my wishes were not followed with K, unfortunately).

My conclusion: look at the other things that can be done which are beneficial to mother and baby and don't undermine breastfeeding.  Saying that solids should be introduced earlier when the mother can increase her iron intake and delayed cord clamping can be practised is a bit like closing the barn after the horses have gone.  It's not getting to the root of the solution and can, in my opinion, cause other problems, in addition to eroding women's confidence in breastfeeding.  And that is something that we definitely don't need, especially given all the obstacles, false information, and hostility with breastfeeding.

The Wonders of Breast Milk

I just saw this article talking about how the composition of breast milk changes.  I already knew that the milk was different between preemies, infants, and toddlers, changing to meet the child's needs.  I also knew that specific antibodies are made according to the child's needs, in addition to the maternal antibodies that are present.  What I didn't know is that the composition of breast milk is also different between boys and girls, with the milk boys receive being higher in protein and fat.  That's pretty amazing!  Maybe it also helps explain why K weighed over a pound more than C at 9 months, despite the fact that he was over a pound lighter than she was at birth.  Really, the more I read, the more amazing breast milk is.

Sick of It

I'm tired of reading things that undermine breastfeeding.  Update: full info on study here. Saying a breastfeeding child needs certain vitamins because breastmilk is low in those.  Low in comparison to what?  Formula?  So the milk that a mother's body makes, that is specifically designed for her child and changes with her child according to the child's needs isn't good enough, but milk from another species is?!  Kellymom has a great post about iron levels and why most breastfed infants are not anaemic. There's a lot of good breastfeeding info on that site, and I highly recommend it.  It's certainly come in handy for me over the years.


Now, I agree that some children may be ready for/need complementary foods prior to 6 months.  This seems like common sense, really.  Just as babies roll over, sit up, talk, crawl, walk, etc at different times, so they are ready for food at different times, with some being ready a little before 6 months (wouldn't think it would be very much prior to that, though), and some are closer to a year before needing solid foods.  C was definitely ready around 5 months.  I'd planned on waiting until she was 6 months, but she was developmentally ready before then, as shown by the fact that she was sitting up well unaided, had lost the tongue-thrust reflex, had the pincer grasp, and was obviously interested in foods.  We follow baby-led weaning, so we followed her cues, and then gave her the same things we were eating, just cut into chunks large enough for her to handle easily.  She didn't actually eat much, if any, of it at first, but gnawed on the foods and explored the tastes and textures.

I also think the article's argument for weaning before 6 months by stating that a child will reject green vegetables if they aren't introduced before then is rather flimsy.  If the mother is eating those things, some of the flavour will be retained in the breast milk. The child will also see those foods being eaten by the family, and can be given them when weaning commences.  Introducing them prior to 6 months, though, is certainly no guarantee that the child will like them as he gets older.  If it was a guarantee, then K would love broccoli now, since he was given that before 6 months, but he won't touch it now.  (side note - K did have solid foods too early and had bad eczema as a result).  So far C eats just about anything except for green beans and Brussels sprouts, though.

Edit to add: I also wanted to add that a baby's iron stores should be increased with delayed cord clamping, so the baby can receive more of the blood.

For a more uplifting note, here's a nice article.

H/T to Dispelling Breastfeeding Myths, who also found that 3 of the 4 authors of the study in the first article admitted to being associated with formula companies, and to The Analytical Armadillo.