Guest guest Posted July 3, 2003 Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 I don't know if anyone has thought of this but a 5 month old baby is not a raw foodest, its just a baby and should be living on breast milk. I don't understand what the parents could have done to harm the baby (weather they were raw or not) unless they denied it breast milk. Doug rawfood , " Kristi Swanson " <swanson@c...> wrote: > http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/6210618.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2003 Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 I totally agree. A five month old shouldn't even have too many teeth yet. Or be sitting up unsupported yet. Breast milk should've been its food. Cathe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2003 Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 Cathe, This thread on the baby and the raw food prompts me echo what may be banal. Long ago an old white Russian told me that the peasant women in Russia used to masticate the food before giving it to baby. This was the old way of weaning. Given that it has been going on for millions of years, it is small wonder that the sensuality of kissing entices so many even to this day! Peter cathe [cathe] 03 July 2003 14:25 rawfood Re: [Raw Food] Kristi, and all I totally agree. A five month old shouldn't even have too many teeth yet. Or be sitting up unsupported yet. Breast milk should've been its food. Cathe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.