starting solids: purees vs baby-led weaning

Goodness, time flies. Layla is six months old next week and I decided to try her on solids the other day - she keeps looking longingly at our food when we eat and has grabbed for Zak's sandwiches a few times, so that's my sign to start! I did the same with Zak and he took to it like hungry boys do to any kind of edible substance. Layla didn't quite get off to the same start - her reaction to her first mouthful was priceless, so I had to capture it on camera. Despite the dry retches, gags and horrifed faces, she kept it down and kept opening her mouth for more! The next was much better - we got smiles, no gags and she even grabbed the spoon off me and gave feeding herself a go. Too cute.

Just like we Zakky, I started on the usual organic rice cereal with tasty breast milk and I'll prob dig out the blender soon to start pureeing the carrots and pumpkin again once she's got used to thicker cereal. A bit of apple can come afterwards (always best to start on the savoury rather than the sweet) and then it's dabbling in everything else.

While this is a pretty stock standard way of introducing solids to your child, I was interested to hear from a friend of mine about a newish feeding fad called Baby-Led Weaning (or BLW). Basically this is letting your baby (from six months) feed themselves what you're eating. They're not exactly going to pick up a knife and fork and start hoeing into a steak, but they'd get it in finger-food form, suck and taste it, and when they're ready, they'll begin to bite into it and chew a little. No purees, no spoons, but lots of mess. I've never heard of this before and to be honest, I just can't imagine my little Layla sucking on a piece of meat as her first non-boob meal. Or feeding herself a carrot stick. But maybe in a month or so I can see her sucking on some melon or banana. But I think I need to introduce the first tastes the good old fashioned way first - via a mushy mix.

As always, there will be people who'll swear by it and those who pan it, so what are your thoughts? Has anyone out there has tried this? How did you go? What do you think about it vs traditional methods? Is it encouraging the child to put everything and anything in their mouths? You can find more about it here - the author of this site has also written a book on it. Would love to hear your thoughts as usual.

Going green(ish)

Trying to get a greener footprint... Pic from Treehugger

I never thought I'd be the type of person who'd care about where her products came from, how they were made or what ingredients they include. But all of sudden, I do. As bad as it sounds, it wasn't the environment that bought this on. The completely superficial side of my newfound green love was the fact that every item of clothing I'd lust over for my babies was organic. Pretty much every organic range I've seen has a subtle palette, the prettiest prints, cool slogans and exquisite style. Obsessed with Purebaby, I read up about them and actually let the environmental awareness side of it all sink into my brain instead of just bypassing as I usually do when I'm not 100% interested in something.

The main clincher, though, was Zak. From day one poor Zakky was slapped with the sensitive skin stamp and we spent a lot of time trialing product after product to find the right ones for him and his eczmea. And still he itches and scratches like a crazy dog when it flares up, which at the moment, is often. He's awaiting allergy tests, but until he gets this done (it can take months to get in), what to do? I'm desperate to know what's causing his itch: is it something he's eating? Something he's wearing? The weather? Something in the air? WHY are there so many damn allergies and conditions with the newer generations? Things just aren't the same, are they? We have BPA in our plastic bottles, formaldehyde in our clothes, pesticides and tar in our food...

If that's not enough to worry about, it now appears I have the peanut allergy to contend with too. This was one allergy I didn't get - I'd never heard of it up until a few years ago so didn't really believe it was as bad as it's turned out to be. But then Zak ate a peanut butter sandwich and broke out in hives. Antihistamines fixed him up, but another slip-up involving him touching a peanut butter sandwich resulted in the same. Again, fixed. Then a few weeks ago, I had to call an ambulance when an innocent-looking rash resulted in his eyes closing up, face swelling and throat closing. We were at a new-baby group at the clinic when I first noticed the rash. The mother of the little boy he was playing with swears he didn't have peanut butter that day. So what was it? Is his allergy to it so bad he can break out via secondary touch (which is terrifying as the reactions can get worse with each exposure, and seem to be in Zak's case even though the actual exposure is less) Or was it the new jumper he was wearing that I hadn't washed yet?

The latest incident has made me a bit more cautious. Until it's determined exactly what his allergies are, I'm all for trying to live a little greener in the hope that may prevent some reactions. So if it means being stricter on the foods I buy and prepare, the fabrics I buy and the products I use, then so be it. I'm certainly not going to change my entire way of living in one step - and I know I won't stop buying things I love just because it's not organic or environmentally aware, but I will think a little more with the day-to-day.

Happily, this is a relatively easy thing these days: we've come a long way from when you were deemed a hippy if you even said the word "environment" or knew what organic meant. There are plenty of greener options and they're almost surprisingly prettier, softer and sometimes cheaper than their more common cousins. I thought I'd share a few bits and pieces with you in coming posts, starting today with my current faves and latest purchases. Because it's really quite easy being green when there are baby and environmentally-safe products as great as these ones...

My fave label: Purebaby muslin wrap, $16.95, Purebaby

Layla practically lives in this label, but this suit I bought as a baby-shower gift for my friend Nadine, who is due in a few weeks. The perfect gender-neutral: greys and blues for boys, birdies and lemon for girls! Side Open Grow Suit, $29.95, Purebaby


Could these be any cuter? Gaia botties, $19.95, Organic Babe

My fave nappies and wipes, Nature Babycare. Yes, they nappies are disposable, but a much better kind made partly from maize. From supermarkets

No BPA, PVC or Phthalate, but heaps of style! Zak's flash new drink bottle. Boon fluid no-spill toddler cup, $14.95, from Minieco

I also bought this fitted sheet yesterday: even prettier than Dwell, but made with organic cotton. Q Collection Junior Fitted Cot Sheet in Galileo, $49.95, from Minieco

everyone's talking about... paid maternity leave

Wasn't sure what to illustrate this one with, so went with a recent one of my babies!

I'm a bit late on this one, but it's because I'm a bit confused as to what I feel about it as I can see both sides of the complainers: it's not enough and it's too much. I really am thrilled it's on the table, because of course it's needed! But aren't we already receiving some sort of maternity leave pay? The $5000 baby bonus spreads out to a little under 10 weeks of minimum wage - which is what mother's will be getting under the paid parental leave scheme. And if you play it smart and save up your holidays as soon as you find out you're pregnant, that could be several weeks pay - plus leave loading - on top of the baby bonus, which, by the way, is tax free. Also on the "it's too much side" is poor old small busineses. I don't have a small business, but my parents do - a childcare centre. When various parental leave models were being thrown around recently, I could imagine their horror at the thought of having to pay their staff maternity leave on top of the holiday pay they'd probably want (as I mentioned above) as well as replacement staffers they'd have to employ. Under the latest proposed scheme, they're spared the paternity payment, but still have to contribute to superannuation. Which means - guess what! - childcare fees are going to have to go up yet again to cover this extra cost. And this is just one industry. Many other small businesses are not going to be able to afford this - especially as they'll be required to pay the maternity leave upfront, and then be reimbursed by the goverment.

On the "it's not enough" side... as my father would say: if you're going to do something, do it properly. Why can't the goverment just fork out an employee's wage and super at their regular rate for a certain amount of weeks? Is it REALLY going to dent the ecomony that much? It's estimated the proposed scheme will cost the government around $540 million annually. Yes, that's a whole heap of money. And yes it'd cost even more if they paid employee's full wages. But it seems nothing when you consider our country returned a budget surplus of $27.1 billion this last financial year.

And for those saying we shouldn't have a paid maternity leave scheme because "we didn't have it back in our day", that may be true, but there must have been a time when retirees weren't paid a pension. And birthing mums didn't have access to drugs. And women couldn't vote. It's called progress! And I'm sure it they'd never have knocked it back.


So there are some conflicting thoughts there... What do you think about it all? Too much? Too little? Just right? It's quite the controversial subject online I've noticed. The thing is, there is no chance of pleasing everyone: regardless of how much or little is offered, there will be people who plod along happily, and there will be people who struggle. Just as they do now.