Baby-Led Weaning: Can It Be Done? Should It Be Done?
Introducing solid foods during mealtimes is not just about supplementing your baby’s nutrition; it marks the beginning of a meaningful journey of learning, exploration, and bonding. Traditionally, parents have guided this process through a structured weaning approach: mom, baby, and spoon. However, an alternative method, known as Baby-Led Weaning (BLW) or Baby-Led Introduction to Solids (BLISS), suggests a different pathway, using a different food management methodology.
The core values of BLW are the self-feeding and self-selecting components. Babies as young as six months of age are offered bite-sized pieces of soft table foods and self-select from an option mom prepares. This is deemed to be a better option than a parent-guided strategy where mom introduces foods with a spoon and some puree. The BLW literature suggests that if a mother follows the pathway of self-feeding it will ultimately produce a preschooler who:
become healthier eaters later in life,
have less to no obesity issues in later childhood,
reduce or eliminate any propensity toward picky eating behaviors,
be less likely to prefer sweets, as preschoolers,
will reduce stress over the entire feeding process.
What mother would not desire and seek these outcomes? They are noble, sweeping, and attainable. . . but not as a result of any method!
Methodology or Intentionality?
Although the benefits of Baby-Led Weaning (BLW) present a tone of attractiveness, there is a disparity between what is promised and the actual outcomes. The insistence that allowing a six or seven-month-old to self-feed, without the aid of mom or spoon-fed nourishment, will somehow secure for the child a most wonderful and healthy future relationship with food, is not just thinking that is outside the box, it is thinking that is outside the galaxy. The problem is not with the desired outcomes but the proclamations and the promise that “self-feeding” combined with “self-selecting” forms a methodology that can achieve these noble goals.
We wish to be clear here, for the same can be said of the traditional, parent-guided weaning process. Just because a mother spoon-feeds her baby purée food does not guarantee she will avoid raising a picky eater or that she can raise a preschooler who prefers kale over candy or broccoli over biscuits. That is because methodology is not a substitute for intentionality. Intentionality recognizes that other training variables that stand independent of mealtime can and will influence dietary and nutritional habits now and into the future.
Parental intentionality, coupled with resolve, is a better option than baby knows best, because the baby doesn’t know best, especially when it comes to solid foods!
What then are we left with? “Self-feeding” versus “spoon-feeding,” “self-directed” versus “mother-directed.” To our readership, we say, “self-feeding” accompanied with the freedom to choose is just around the developmental corner. There is no advantage gained by forcing this on a six-month-old when it will naturally become part of his or her life around ten months, when the child reaches the required milestones necessary for true self-feeding.
If parents hope to instill healthy mealtime habits while avoiding picky eaters and obese children in the future, the parent-directed weaning protocols offered on the pages to follow have a better track record of success than any child-centered methodology. Parent-directed weaning recognizes training variables that go beyond the simple passing on of nutrition. This is part of the scope and sequence associated with the “Begin as you mean to go” philosophy.
The Challenge of BLW
Baby-Led Weaning (BLW) maintains a level of popularity, especially within Attachment Parenting circles from where it originated. Yet, research has yet to show that it offers any advantages over the traditional, parent-guided approach to introducing solids. To this point, pediatric experts worldwide have voiced concerns about potential risks, particularly regarding nutrition and safety. That may be due to the fact that much of the existing support for BLW is drawn from self-reported observations by mothers, which, while valuable, may not always provide a complete picture, according to the National Institute of Health.
Since as early as 2010, numerous studies, many conducted by researchers who hold a favorable view of BLW, have contributed to our understanding of this approach. Yet, within their findings are three important and often understated considerations that deserve attention:
The potential benefits of BLW come with a gentle uncertainty because the conclusions are couched in the language of uncertainty. A young child may grow into a healthier eater, may have a lower risk of obesity later in childhood, and may be less selective with food. When research findings use the word may, it only signifies possibilities rather than guarantees, suggestions rather than certainties. In the many BLW research studies, “May” is ubiquitous.
The “ MAY” qualifiers then impact the various research conclusions, which all have a similar theme. For example: “Ultimately, the feasibility, benefits and risks of BLW as an approach to infant feeding can only be determined in a study in which infants and their families are randomized to following BLW, and their outcomes are compared to those of a control group following standard feeding practices.”(1) More on this point later.
According to one report in the NIH Nutrients National Library of Medicine, a bias naturally exists in most BLW studies because researchers tend to recruit participants who self-identify as followers of the BLW methodology. Thus, the data collected is subject to a predetermined outcome.(2)
Given the extensive research required to form an objective perspective (to the extent that an objective review is possible), we wish to provide both a brief summary and a more in-depth analysis for those who wish to explore the topic further.
Our short conclusion is this: BLW over the last twenty years has not provided sufficient evidence that links cause with the claimed effects. For instance, a three-year-old’s love for vegetables cannot definitively be linked to self-feeding at six months, just as self-feeding at seven months does not necessarily prevent obesity at age five. This also appears to be one of the consistent claims posed by researchers. We will look into this further down below. However, we selected three questions to guide this conversation:
Does BLW truly deliver what it promises?
Does it offer advantages over the traditional, parent-guided method of weaning, particularly in terms of efficiency and outcomes?
What are the potential health risks associated, if any?
By reflecting on these questions, we trust parents can make an informed decision that best suits their baby’s needs, developmental readiness, and family dynamics.
Comparing Baby-Led Weaning with Parent-Directed Feeding
Let’s begin our conversation. When using the traditional parent-guided method of weaning, infants are first introduced to puréed-foods and gently spoon-fed by a caregiver. This method allows babies to gradually experience new tastes and textures, ensuring they receive the necessary nourishment while developing their eating skills. As they grow and become more coordinated, finger foods are introduced, although these typically do not make up a significant portion of Baby’s diet until later feeding stages.
On the other hand, BLW takes a different approach. Instead of starting with purées, infants begin feeding themselves from the very start of complementary feeding, around six months of age. Advocates of BLW highlight potential benefits such as fostering independence and encouraging a diverse palate, as discussed earlier.
A fundamental difference between these two methods lies in their underlying presuppositions. The traditional, parent-directed approach to weaning is grounded in the belief that mothers and fathers, armed with their knowledge and life experience, are best suited to guide their baby’s nutritional journey. In contrast, BLW embraces the belief that infants are born with an internal monitoring sense that can regulate their dietary wants and needs.
In reality, when it comes to food choices, both weaning methods are parent-directed. Whether following BLW or the traditional approach, parents ultimately decide what foods to offer, hopefully ensuring that meals are safe, nutritious, and appropriate for their baby’s development.
After sorting through numerous opinions from Facebook chats, TikTok concerns, and research papers, the actual difference between the two weaning methods comes down to a simple choice: Do you begin offering solids with puréed foods and a spoon or soft, chewable pieces of table food placed on a plate for the baby to explore and attempt to self-feed without a mother’s aide or a spoon? Who would have guessed that such a simple contrast in weaning could stir up so much confusion, controversy, and thousands of studies?
Self-Feeding
As it relates to self-feeding, it seems almost self-evident that a baby’s ability to self-feed depends on their developmental readiness. One important yet often overlooked factor is a child's age and motor skill development. Self-feeding requires specific motor skills, which emerge gradually over time. The palmar grasp, which allows babies to use their whole hand to grasp objects with limited control, begins developing between 4 and 6 months. At this stage, babies lack the coordination needed to pick up small pieces of food effectively, if at all.
Next comes the raking motion, which typically appears around 5 to 7 months. This allows babies to use their fingers to pull objects toward themselves, but it does not yet provide the precision needed for meaningful self-feeding.
By 8 to 10 months, babies start developing the inferior pincer grasp, which enables them to pick up small objects, like pea-sized food, between their thumb and forefinger. However, transferring food from hand to mouth is still inconsistent, often resulting in a lot of dropped bites and messy mealtimes.
Finally, around 10 to 12 months, babies acquire the neat pincer grasp, a key skill for independent eating. At this stage, they can intentionally pick up small pieces of food, like a single grain of rice, and bring it to their mouth with much more accuracy.
Understanding these natural stages of development can help parents feel reassured that self-feeding is a gradual process that unfolds in its own time as their child gains the coordination and confidence needed for mealtime independence.
When proponents claim that a six-month-old baby can independently self-feed from a plate of small pieces of table food, we must ask: How? What motor skills make this possible? The science of infant development tells us that this level of dexterity is simply not present at six months. Yes, they can rake food with their fingers, and by chance, some of it might find its way to the baby’s mouth. They may even gnaw on a sauteed carrot stick, but that is not self-feeding any more than gnawing on their rubber teether. Whether a sauteed carrot stick or a teether, this is part of a baby’s exploration and discovery, a developmental step toward fine motor control, but it is not an intentional act of self-feeding. In truth, actual self-feeding is only a couple of months away, so why rush a child before the readiness markers have been achieved?
Our recommendation follows: Instead of idealizing the notion of early independence, it is crucial to align expectations with a baby’s natural developmental timeline. Providing the right support, whether through spoon-feeding, safe finger foods, or a mix of both, ensures they get the nourishment they need while gradually developing the coordination necessary for safe and effective self-feeding.
The key takeaway is this: by the time a baby reaches nine or ten months of age, both weaning approaches naturally align, no matter which method a parent initially chooses. In other words, the debate between BLW and the traditional, parent-guided approach primarily applies to a brief period, just a few months between six and nine or ten months of age.
After this stage, all babies begin engaging with finger foods and exploring self-feeding, regardless of how they started. The only small difference at that point is the level of assistance a parent wishes to provide, whether they continue to offer occasional help with a spoon, and those times Mom will direct and times when baby will choose the food options placed in front of him and self-feed. It does not have to be one or the other!
What Are The Issues?
In Summary, the debate over Baby-Led Weaning versus traditional Parent-Directed Feeding can be reduced to the original three questions.
Does BLW truly deliver what it promises?
Does BLW offer advantages over the traditional, parent-guided method of weaning, particularly in terms of efficiency and outcomes?
What are the potential health risks associated, if any?
Unfortunately, the answer to all three questions is “no.” We say this with concern and sensitivity, knowing that many new mothers place their trust and their baby’s well-being in a method that, while popular, lacks strong scientific validation. At the same time, it carries certain nutritional and health risks that have raised concerns within the global pediatric community.
Reviewing the Concerns
A significant volume of medical literature raises health concerns and cautions that are not typically found with the conventional method of weaning. The first five on our list below are of more significant than the last four, which remain valid but to a lesser extent. We begin with choking. Let's clarify this risk:
1. Choking Risk
The public claims that BLW may increase the risk of choking, especially if caregivers provide foods that are too hard, round, or sticky, has limited validity and applies more to babies between 6 to 9 months of age, then any other phase of growth. During this period, infants have not yet fully developed the oral motor skills needed to manage certain textures and shapes safely. However, after 9 months of age, the number of reported BLW choking incidents have been reported equal in numbers to babies weaned using the traditional method. Choking, regardless of the method, is always a concern and something parents need to be attentive to.
2. Vomiting in Baby-Led Weaning
While the risk of choking is minimized, the gagging reflex is significantly increased with the BLW method. While gagging is a safety mechanism in young babies, it nonetheless puts additional stress on mothers. Unfortunately, the more the gag reflex is triggered, the more often vomiting occurs. BLW encourages babies to explore a variety of textures early on. However, for the baby who struggles with a particular texture (e.g., fibrous meat or dry foods), the chances of gagging goes up and is followed by gag-induced vomiting. Therein lies the challenge.
National Institute of Health (NIH) has concluded that the vomiting reflex, spitting food out of the mouth, and gagging were more common among children fed by the BLW method.(3) This fact needs to be considered if a mother follows the BLW methodology.
3. Inadequate Nutrient Intake
Inadequate nutrition is a widespread concern within the global medical community regarding the BLW method. Parents can address these concerns by selecting foods high in iron, zinc, and protein, essential nutrients for growth. However, being encouraged to do so and following through consistently is one of the concerns. Iron deficiency is a significant concern because babies depend on iron-rich foods after six months, and BLW often includes low-iron options like fruits and vegetables instead of iron-fortified cereals or meats typically provided with the traditional weaning method.
4. Poor Weight Gain or Growth Concerns
Some infants may struggle with self-feeding and fail to meet their energy needs, which can lead to poor weight gain or faltering growth (failure to thrive). The theory behind BLW suggests that a child can be trusted to recognize what to eat, how much to eat, and when to stop eating. However, the repeated concern is that some parents may misinterpret a baby’s slow eating pace as their baby is signalling fullness rather than a need for more nutrition. Inconsistent or unbalanced eating habits can result in underweight issues due to inadequate calorie intake, overweight problems from excessive consumption of sugary, processed foods, and delayed cognitive and motor development stemming from a lack of essential nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids, iron, and protein.
Another key concern is inadequate caloric intake. Babies with delayed oral motor development and who struggle with grasping, chewing, or swallowing solid foods may not consume enough calories to support proper growth. This condition is not a result of BLW, but BLW may mask a weakened developmental condition because it presupposes that the baby knows best.
5. Appetite Suppresses Hunger
Appetite reflects our food desires, while hunger signals a biological need for nutrition. Allowing young children to eat on their own terms can also disrupt hunger regulation by letting appetite dictate food desires. Without structured mealtimes, children often develop erratic hunger cues, increasing the likelihood of overeating, skipping meals, or forming disordered eating habits, which may deprive the child of sufficient calories or essential nutrients, such as iron, needed during specific growth phases.
With the traditional method of parent-directed weaning, a baby and a pre-toddler receive the proper age-related nutrition, as ascribed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, whose recommendations have worked for generations. Yet, the same American Academy of Pediatrics warns of nutritional deficiency that can accompany baby-led weaning. Why does the Academy offer this warning? Because of the number of babies showing up in pediatric practices undernourished as a result of baby-led weaning.
Moreover, inconsistent eating habits that arise from prioritizing appetite over actual hunger can result in behavioral problems like mood swings, irritability, and trouble concentrating, often due to fluctuating blood sugar levels. Additionally, hunger and nutrient imbalances are linked to emotional dysregulation, such as tantrums.
6. Risk of Food Allergies
The delayed introduction of allergenic foods (e.g., peanuts, eggs, dairy) due to BLW hesitation may increase allergy risks. Many finger foods marketed for the BLW market (e.g., crackers, bread, and packaged snacks) contain high levels of salt and added sugars, which are not recommended for infants. While BLW holds up family as a virtue, and it is, BLW meals require careful preparation to avoid excessive seasoning, which is disruptive to a baby’s tummy.
8. Difficulty in Monitoring Food Intake
Unlike spoon-feeding, where caregivers can measure exact amounts, BLW makes it challenging to track how much the baby actually eats. Some parents worry about whether their baby is getting a balanced diet, especially if they refuse certain food groups.
9. Gastrointestinal Issues
Some BLW foods, especially high-fiber vegetables, may contribute to digestive discomfort, gas, or constipation if not balanced with other foods.
Compared to the traditional approach, the baby-led approach to weaning does not provide any verifiable advantages to the child, but it does foster sufficient concerns that prevent the global pediatric community from wholeheartedly endorsing the practice.
Who is Saying What?
Let’s now consider a quick review of the literature.
The NIH (National Library of Medicine, which collects and preserves health studies) provides an endless list of research and review papers related to all things medical, including BLW. Nearly every published review concludes that BLW has a broad base of popularity. However, the benefits reported “cannot be verified because there is no control group to measure actual outcomes.” This inference seems to be a common thread woven through the tapestry of the many conclusions. For example:
Additional research is needed to understand the impacts of BLW and CW on nutrient intakes and growth to inform recommendations for infant complementary feeding approaches.(4)
There are still major unresolved issues about baby-led weaning that require answers from research and that should be considered when advice is requested from health professionals by parents willing to approach this method.(5)
A randomized controlled trial is ultimately the only way to determine the feasibility of BLW as an approach to infant feeding. Given the popularity of BLW amongst parents, such a study is urgently needed.(6)
Ultimately, the feasibility, benefits and risks of BLW as an approach to infant feeding can only be determined in a study in which infants and their families are randomized to following BLW, and their outcomes are compared to those of a control group following standard feeding practices. Given the popularity of BLW amongst parents, such a study is urgently needed.(7)
There are currently very limited longitudinal data and no randomised controlled trials investigating a baby-led approach to complementary feeding. A randomised controlled trial is urgently needed in order to determine the answers to these questions, both because an increasing number of parents are choosing to follow BLW, and because, if a baby-led approach to complementary feeding proves to be protective against excess weight gain in infancy, it is essential to know whether it is both safe for infants and acceptable for parents, before it can be advocated as a public health intervention.(8) Please note the study date above: 2015. Ten years later, still no longitudinal studies that confirm the benefits of BLW.
The NHI summary statement provides this summary: “ . . . despite the benefits associated with this method, (BLW) health professionals are reluctant to advise the adoption of this new approach, especially given the many concerns related to the possible negative impact on the child's health, increased risk of choking, and higher probability of low intake of energy and micronutrients, especially iron, because it is the child who decides the quantity and quality of the food, choosing among the different options given to him or her during meals.(9)
Let’s move to other pediatric reports.
This is a social media-driven invention, says Dr Mark Corkins, chair of the Committee on Nutrition at the American Academy of Pediatrics.(10)
Several pediatricians and healthcare professionals have expressed concerns regarding baby-led weaning (BLW). Dr. Amy L. Silverio from Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago highlights potential issues such as increased choking risk, insufficient food intake, and low iron intake, noting that there is a lack of robust evidence and clinical guidelines to support baby-led weaning.(11)
Baby-led weaning is a new feeding method in which children feed themselves independently from the first introduction of solid food – usually around 6 months. Rising in popularity, this new trend has babies forego “mush” (purées) and spoon feeding and go directly to solid foods from the get-go. Baby-led weaning can be summarized in one word to me: DANGEROUS.(12)
The European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) has not endorsed BLW due to limited evidence supporting its safety and efficacy. Concerns have been raised about the potential for nutritional deficiencies, particularly in iron and zinc, as infants may not consume sufficient quantities of these essential nutrients through BLW alone.(13)
The delayed introduction of allergenic foods (e.g., peanuts, eggs, dairy) due to BLW hesitation may increase allergy risks. Many finger foods marketed for the BLW market (e.g., crackers, bread, and packaged snacks) contain high levels of salt and added sugars, which are not recommended for infants. While BLW holds up family as a virtue, and it is, BLW meals require careful preparation to avoid excessive seasoning, which is disruptive to a baby’s tummy.(14)
The downsides of BLW are the risk of not getting enough energy, iron, zinc, vitamins, and other nutrients or getting too much protein, saturated fat, salt, or sugar. An increased risk of choking by food inhalation, which must be distinguished from the physiological gag reflex, has not been ruled out by current scientific studies. In conclusion, the SFP Nutrition Committee considers that the data currently published on BLW, both in terms of benefits and risks, cannot lead to this practice being recommended in preference to the traditional method carried out according to current recommendations.(15)
Conclusion
After countless hours of research, we are disheartened by the lack of scientific depth surrounding the debate on Baby-Led Weaning (BLW). With over twenty years of exposure and more than a thousand studies on the topic, we had hoped to see stronger evidence of causality. Yet, even now, the conversation remains as speculative as it was when similar ideas first emerged three decades ago.
There is no doubt that BLW has gained widespread popularity. But could its appeal be more a result of compelling promises made rather than solid scientific validation? Many discussions on the topic are infused with romanticized notions, the image of a baby joyfully exploring food, savoring flavors and textures with a sense of autonomy that traditional weaning methods seemingly cannot provide. The claims are enticing: that BLW fosters a profound love for food, a rich palate, and a lifelong benefit to the child’s well-being.
Yet, while advocates praise BLW as a groundbreaking change, most medical professionals and grandmothers regard it as nonessential, raising valid concerns about the possible risks involved. Again, as stated above, we are only talking about two to three months of traditional spoon-feeding before a child begins finger foods and self-selection based on his or her achieved dexterity skills.
Therefore, out of love and concern for a child's health and safety, we encourage parents to rely on the wisdom that has withstood the test of time. Traditional weaning practices exist for good reasons: providing structure, nourishment, and reassurance, trust in your instincts, your knowledge, and the generations of experience that guide you. Begin as you mean to go and continue, gently, wisely, and confidently in the food choices you select for your little one.
References
NIH Nutrients National Library of Medicine, Nutrients: 2012 Nov 2;4(11):1575–1609. doi: 10.3390/nu4111575.
Ibid
NIH Nutrients National Library of Medicine, Nutrients: 2022 Oct 21:10:992244. doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.992244.
NIH Nutrients National Library of Medicine, Nutrients: 2024 Aug 23;16(17):2828. doi: 10.3390/nu16172828.
NIH Nutrients National Library of Medicine, Nutrients: 2018 May 3;44(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s13052-018-0487-8.)
NIH Nutrients National Library of Medicine, Nutrients: 2012 Nov 2;4(11):1575-609. doi: 10.3390/nu4111575”
NIH Nutrients National Library of Medicine, Nutrients: 2012 Nov 2;4(11):1575–1609. doi: 10.3390/nu4111575
NIH Nutrients National Library of Medicine, Nutrients: 2015 Nov 12;15:179. doi: 10.1186/s12887-015-0491-8)
NIH Nutrients National Library of Medicine, Nutrients: 2022 Oct 21;10:992244. doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.992244
AAP Baby-led weaning: What are the risks and benefits? 30 July 2023 DOUBLE CHECK THIS REFERNCED
Public Article Posted on LurieChildrens.org, November 28, 2023.
Public Article Posted KidNurse.org My Bone to Pick With Baby Led Weaning July 24, 2014
(NIH Nutrients National Library of Medicine, Nutrients: 2019 May 31;25(2):77–78.
(NIH Nutrients National Library of Medicine, Nutrients: 2019 May 31;25(2):77–78.
Archives de Pédiatrie, Volume 29, Issue 7, October 2022, Pages 516-525