Pureed Baby Foods Unnatural for Babies

According to Gill Rapley, deputy director of Unicef's UK Baby Friendly Initiative, has spoken out against the use of pureed baby foods for infants.

She claims there is no benefit to the practice and urges parents to feed their babies nothing but breast milk or formula for the first six months, followed by solid pieces of food that are easily chewable thereafter.

She blames the food industry for brainwashing parents into believing there is any need for pureed baby foods, adding "There is no longer any window of a baby's development in which they need something more than milk and less than solids."

Roger Clarke, director-general of the Infant and Dietetic Foods Association, which represents the food industry, disagrees. He states that generations of parents have relied on baby foods to provide "safe, sound nutrition" for their babies. He does, however, agree that there's no "one-size-fits-all" rules on infant feeding.

I have to disagree with Clarke regarding his statement about the food industry's capability to provide truly sound nutrition for infants.

Nestle and Gerber are some of the biggest names in baby food, and both have proven trackrecords of nutritional inadequacies and improprieties. If you still want to feed your baby some soft food, it's fast and easy to grind up your own mix of fresh organic vegetables, which will have tons of nutritional value, and none of the added sugars, preservatives or colorings.

BBC News June 18, 2007