Baby vitamins

Have to disagree with your last sentence Bags

I think the routine of giving babies extra vitamins came in after World War II when there were still food shortages and rationing – baby boomer time. It seems likely that it was needed then and the baby clinics provided stuff that parents either couldn't get or couldn't afford elsewhere. Nowadays, it shouldn't be necessary.

To some extent I agree with bags – there does seem to be an attitude that only if you take the right supplements, then your diet will be a healthy one – as if you don't get the nutrition you need from a proper diet anyway.

Yes, my last sentence is a bit bald, anya, so I comprehend your disagreement with it. However, I do think we obsess a bit about health nowadays and call things healthy or unhealthy which really just what they are and nothing directly to do with health.

#waffling, I know. Trying to put vague thoughts into words.

The vitamins probably are unnecessary for well cared for babies and children, but they might be a blessing for children of parents on low incomes who can't afford good diets.

(Takes me about ten minutes to get through all the vits, minerals, probiotics, I'm taking at the moment. I think it's older people who might need them! )

I did give my babies , think it was called abidex, approaching winter ,over forty years ago , nothing wrong with a little boost, more so now with organic veg and fruit so costly

My little DGC have what they call "bit mins" at breakfast as do their parents. On seeing Grandpa with the sort of array of pills a person can need at our age, they asked "Is that Grandpa's bitmins?"
Fortunately they don't think too much about these things or they might have wondered at the quantity!

"bitmins"! So sweet!!

I agree baby vitamins are largely unnecessary. Children who eat poorly might need them - one of my grandaughters still has vitamin drops on prescription since being born very premature - she's uninterested in food and will discard half of what's on her plate (the colourful vegetables - prefers beige!), often underweight, although she's a lively and active little girl, taller than average.

I believe that the dept of Health guidelines are that babies from 6 months should have A, C and D, and that they should have vitamin D up to the age of 5. I wonder if the vitamin D is to compensate for the lack of sunlight as minimum exposure is now recommended until the age of 3.

I think the baby vitamin drops are only recommended for breast fed babies, as infant formula contains these already.

I gave DC vitamin drops from birth until they were eight years old. DS especially benefited as he had a skin condition that was exacerbated by sunlight so he did not get a lot of sun on his skin.

I understand that the evidence for giving vitamin D is stacking up - one report I read suggested everyone from Birmingham north should take a supplement because of the reduced levels of sunlight. One health problem which may be made worse by a lack of D is multiple sclerosis. There isn't definite evidence but a strong correlation between incidences of the disease, where people live and their access to sunlight. It seems to be particularly important for children and young teenagers to receive added vitamin D. www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/10/orkney-islands-multiple-sclerosis-rate

DD gives her two vitamins and omega 3 every day. I'm not convinced it's necessary, but she is a biochemist so who am I to argue?