Babies powdered milk question

daska

emlou2009 wrote: »

the fact is this has been discussed many, many, many times on this board and each time 99% of parents say they make up feeds in advance, with no problems whatsoever.

OK, been thinking about this for a bit and my response is

bully for the 99% of babies that don't suffer the potential after-effects, I'm thrilled that 99% of babies don't get ill...

but what about the 1% who do?

of course we all choose to feed our babies the way which is most appropriate for us whether that's breastfeeding or bottles, but why do so many people feel it's OK to promote out of date advice when it's a baby's life and health at risk?

tiamai_d

Morgan_Ree wrote: »

Perhaps things have changed from 4 years ago but I had a very good HV who told me making up the days bottles in the morning was perfectly acceptable. They were fine to keep up to 24 hrs provided they hadn't been used

So many guidelines out!
I think i'd be extremely stressed if i was a new mum again now

My DS2 is 4 and I tell ya, stressed is not the word! :rotfl: Do you know, that we totally ruined our babies kidneys (or is that livers) and doomed them to be fat all their life because we weaned at 4 months? We also caused them to have various skin problems by using baby bath, made the cord a bubbling mass of infection by using those little tubs of medicated powder, rotted the skin on their bums by using bum cream and risked their lives everytime we strapped them into theri non-isofix carseats :rolleyes:

Nowerdays when you come home from the hospital, baby isn't the heaviest thing you have to lift, it's the bag of leaflets!

(thats all in jest btw, I'm just a crabbit old mum stuck in the dark ages of 2005)

daska

tiamai_d wrote: »

My DS2 is 4 and I tell ya, stressed is not the word! :rotfl: Do you know, that we totally ruined our babies kidneys (or is that livers) and doomed them to be fat all their life because we weaned at 4 months? We also caused them to have various skin problems by using baby bath, made the cord a bubbling mass of infection by using those little tubs of medicated powder, rotted the skin on their bums by using bum cream and risked their lives everytime we strapped them into theri non-isofix carseats :rolleyes:

Nowerdays when you come home from the hospital, baby isn't the heaviest thing you have to lift, it's the bag of leaflets!

(thats all in jest btw, I'm just a crabbit old mum stuck in the dark ages of 2005)

:rotfl:

that's if you get to the point of giving birth without having already condemned your precious bundle by eating soft cheese (or had a fizzy drink according to one midwife)

tiamai_d

daska wrote: »

:rotfl:

that's if you get to the point of giving birth without having already condemned your precious bundle by eating soft cheese

Oh yeah, peanut allergies. I totally gave DS2 a peanut allergy that will at some point show up because I ate a snickers.

Course, DD, will be fine, cos I was allowed em this time! :T

Morgan_Ree

daska wrote: »

:rotfl:

that's if you get to the point of giving birth without having already condemned your precious bundle by eating soft cheese (or had a fizzy drink according to one midwife)

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I remember I ate a prawn once and told my original HV (It was like a guilty secret I just couldn't keep anymore)

Well you would have thought I'd just shot her mum!!

emlou2009

daska wrote: »

OK, been thinking about this for a bit and my response is

bully for the 99% of babies that don't suffer the potential after-effects, I'm thrilled that 99% of babies don't get ill...

but what about the 1% who do?

of course we all choose to feed our babies the way which is most appropriate for us whether that's breastfeeding or bottles, but why do so many people feel it's OK to promote out of date advice when it's a baby's life and health at risk?

When I said the 99% figure, I actually meant that 99% of the posts in response to this OP's age old question say that they make up the feeds in advance, and only about 1% make them fresh.

In all honesty, yours is the first story I've heard of a baby getting ill from having feeds made up in advance, and as I know salmonella bacteria are absolutely everywhere I would have had to question if the baby did actually get it from the milk, given that it wasnt tested

JBD

tiamai_d wrote: »

Oh yeah, peanut allergies. I totally gave DS2 a peanut allergy that will at some point show up because I ate a snickers.

Course, DD, will be fine, cos I was allowed em this time! :T

I remember giving my eldest peanut butter[smooth] when he was 6 or 7 months old. It was supposed to be a good form of protein. I don't think peanut allergy was very well known then.

daska

Understood. And I also accept that without the benefit of being able to test the milk powder it isn't possible to conclude that this was definitely the culprit.

But of course I know all the background such as my sister's good hygiene regime because of her husband's medical conditions.

daska

peanut allergy is an odd one isn't it? it always seemed odd to me that it doesn't appear to be a problem in countries where peanuts are a primary source of protein and commonly used when weaning children. in fact the government revised it's advice on peanuts during pregnancy and childhood only a few months ago following a review that concluded that there was no evidence to support a general embargo on pregnant women and children eating peanuts. see here.

daska

oh, the other point about testing the milk is that unless the can is opened and kept in sterile conditions prior to being tested it isn't possible to be certain whether the milk powder was contaminated before or after being canned. So testing the powder wouldn't have been conclusive anyway.