Baby-Led Weaning: Can It Be Done? Should It Be Done?
(Introductory Notes: For readers coming directly from the Babywise II or The Babyhood Transitions books, can skip down to the subtitle: The Challenge of BLW.)
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. Historically, parents guided this process by combining mom, baby, purée, and a spoon.
An alternative approach to introducing solids, known as Baby-led Weaning (BLW) or, in some versions, Baby-led Introduction to Solids (BLISS), proposes a different philosophy rooted in the belief that, during the weaning process, the baby is capable of guiding his or her own eating experience, because baby knows best.
While the term “Baby-led” is intriguing, it does not fully capture the realities of the approach. In practice, the baby is not “actually leading anything,” certainly not in the way the term suggests. Babies do not initiate their own meals; they do not select from a menu. At these tender ages, the parents (most often Mom) still determine the taste and textures of a meal, what foods are offered, how they are prepared, and when meals occur. The baby’s role is relatively passive, especially at six months of age. They eat or don’t eat whatever food options Mom presents.
The assumption that a six or seven-month-old can guide and should guide their own eating experience is also intriguing. While the “Baby-led” label may sound more aspirational than literal, it does point toward a shift in feeding philosophy. Despite any possible confusion over the name, the core values of Baby-led Weaning merit review and consideration. These values include:
Self-feeding – encouraging a baby to use their hands to explore, discover and eat food at their own pace.
Limiting or avoiding processed foods – emphasizing whole, fresh foods over pre-packaged options.
Self-selection – allowing a baby to choose how much to eat from what is available.
Let’s take a closer look at each of these values.
Self-Feeding and BLW
Your baby’s emerging ability to explore food with those tiny, curious fingers marks a quiet but deeply meaningful milestone in his or her development. It’s more than a charming moment, it is the beginning of self-directed action, a tangible sign that your child is progressing toward independence. This important step is only made possible by the gradual maturation of hand-to-mouth coordination, a complex neurological achievement that unfolds gradually and over time.
Expecting a six-month-old to independently self-feed small pieces of food from a highchair tray, even puréed foods, introduces a developmental expectation that is not supported by neuro-biological readiness. Self-feeding requires specific motor skills that develop over time, and according to a predetermined neurologic timetable, it is not something that can or should be rushed! For example, a six-month-old does not possess the physical finger dexterity or motor precision to begin self-feeding effectively until eight to ten months of age.
The dexterity progression follows: First, the palmar grasp, which is present at birth, allows babies to use their whole hand to grasp objects with limited control, and it persists until four to six months of age. 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 five to seven months. This allows babies to use their fingers to pull objects toward themselves, but it does not yet provide the precision for meaningful self-feeding.
The more advanced inferior pincer grasp, which is typically seen between eight and ten months, allows babies to pick up larger items with their thumb and forefinger. The highly refined, neat pincer grasp, which enables a baby to pick up something as small as a grain of rice, usually develops between ten and twelve months.
Further, there are key muscle groups, six used in chewing, and three needed to safely swallow solid foods. Both muscle groups follow a gradual timeline that mirrors a baby’s overall neuro-muscular and oral-motor development. While some of the necessary muscles become more functional as early as six months, the muscle groups overall are not fully developed until significantly later, certainly after nine months of age. When claims are made that a six-month-old can self-feed solids and purée type foods, we must ask a foundational question: What motor skills does this baby truly have that allow for self-feeding?
Yet, advocates for Baby-led weaning would say waiting for the neuro-biological unfolding of the needed chewing, swallowing and finger dexterity is not necessary because baby learns by touching, playing, splashing, and squishing his food; yes, even at six months and yes, even with purée foods. Messy? Absolutely! But the bigger the mess, the better since “the mess” is the lead indicator that the baby is actually directing his or her own self-feeding by becoming familiar with the texture of the food.
It is suggested that Mom can aid the process, but not with a spoon (for the spoon directed by Mom is a symbol of control within the BLW population), but by dipping baby’s teether or toy into the puréed food, handing the teether to the baby, which allows the baby to discover taste on his own. This way, the baby is said to be self-feeding with minimum intervention from Mom.
Thus, the value of self-feeding, even at six months of age, is preserved, at least in theory, along with the secondary assumption that children will learn to accept a variety of new tastes if they are provided opportunities to interact with the texture of their food in the discovery process.
However, the secondary assumption is also challenged by Science 101. A baby’s brain comes preloaded with taste sensations, not texture aversions. Children are drawn to different foods because of flavors, not textures. We can assure the reader that any legitimate texture issues that may appear with a pretoddler is not anchored to whether or not self-feeding was initiated at six months of age.
Remember, the first rule of baby-care neurology is to make sure that the signs of readiness are present before introducing expectations that the child is not ready to manage. Otherwise, you risk interfering with the natural progression of neuro-muscular development. That truth, we believe, is fairly evident. For ”the mess” that is so celebrated in Baby-led weaning bulletin boards, is not an indicator that the child is learning; rather, “the mess” (and messy child) is a lead indicator that the child is not yet ready for the task being forced on him. That is not an idea to run toward but away from.
The good news is this: All babies learn to self-feed when the time is right. There is no need to demonize the spoon or the loving hand that serves it because the goal is to get the right nutrition into that little body and do so efficiently. This does not mean a six-month-old should never be given a steamed broccoli stem or a steamed carrot slice to gnaw on. For the debate is not whether self-feeding is beneficial—it is, but rather does encouraging self-feeding at six or seven months actually offers any real, measurable advantages that would not naturally be acquired at eight, nine, or ten months of age?
There’s a quiet pressure within the culture of parenting to celebrate early: early walkers, early talkers, early eaters and early self-feeders. However, encouraging a child to do something before their body is fully ready can usher in unforeseen neuro deficits. A child cannot build confidence from a place of strain. Pushing for premature milestones overlooks the brilliance of timing built into their biology. Readiness isn’t a delay; it is the very protection parents are looking for!
The long-term benefits of following your baby’s biological timetable far outweigh the short-term novelty of starting too soon and without Mom’s guidance. It is better to be two months late than one day early. Let your baby show you he is ready, and when you match his readiness with action, he will thrive.
BLW and Table Foods
The second core value of Baby-Led weaning emphasizes choosing whole, natural table foods over highly processed manufactured alternatives. However, this principle preceded the BLW theory and stands as a strong, independent pillar of infant nutrition. Preparing homemade baby food always has its benefits, provided the foods are safe and nutritionally appropriate for a growing baby. In many parts of the world, home-prepared baby food has been the norm for decades, while the United States has only recently begun to recognize its advantages. This gives parents many more freedoms than generations past.
To put this into a historical perspective, it was after World War I that processed baby foods became popular; first in Europe then in North America. Over time a standardized feeding protocol was established, beginning with manufactured fortified cereals, then vegetables, fruits, and finally meats. This order of food groups stood firm for five generations.
Today, a new awareness reigns; parents have the freedom to shape their baby’s introduction to food in a way that aligns with both modern nutritional understanding and their family’s food preferences. However, this freedom comes with some warnings. There are legitimate pediatric and NIH concerns and warnings related to this aspect of the BLW methodology. Yet, at the same time, we are pleased to say, many Prep moms have embraced with success, home-prepared baby food, while still embracing the fundamental belief that parent-led weaning is fundamentally healthier, wiser, and safer for the baby.
In our next chapter, we will begin exploring the process of making home made baby food. When approached with care, prioritizing both safety and nutrition, making your own baby food can serve as a valuable alternative to store bought processed foods.
One last point to be made. Please keep in mind, that while parents have two distinct food source options, manufactured and homemade, they do not have to choose one or the other. A combination of both may be a good option given your unique circumstances, such as when traveling, whether for an afternoon or a week. ek. You may not always be in a context where a kitchen is handy to prepare baby meals as you are at home.
BLW and Self-Selecting
The third core value, self-selecting food preferences, comes with two promised benefits. First, self-selecting is viewed as a unique learning experience that contributes to a healthy future of self-governance, (autonomy). This is done by allowing a baby to choose what foods to eat, avoid, or not eat at all. It is assumed that babies have an intuitive sense that can best direct their nutritional needs.
What parent would not want their child to become self-governing? But does self-feeding actually contribute to that noble outcome or injure it? Let’s take a step back and consider the broader concept of childhood self-governance. First, childhood self-governance is not simply about making decisions; it involves managing emotions and impulses. Raising a healthy, self-governing child is a complex and nuanced task that requires years of carefully balancing guidance and independence, boundaries and freedoms, desires and self-regulation. You can take comfort in this fact: How a baby takes nourishment has little to do with healthy self-governance in the future. If it was only that easy!
The second promised benefit is futuristic. The BLW literature suggests that if a mother follows the strategy of self-feeding and self-selecting, it will ultimately produce a preschooler who:
becomes a healthier eater later in life,
has less to no obesity issues in later childhood,
less likely to be a picky eater,
is less likely to prefer sweets as a preschooler,
experiences reduced stress during the entire feeding process.
Again, these are all wonderful goals that any parent would aspire too. However, the suggestion, that by allowing a six or seven-month-old to self-feed without the aid of Mom (or a spoon) will somehow secure for the child, at some point in the future, a wonderful and healthy relationship with food is not just thinking outside the box, it is thinking that rests someplace outside the galaxy.
The problem is not with the desired outcomes (we can help you achieve those) but with the proclamations and promises that claim ‘self-feeding’ combined with ‘self-selecting’ forms a learning track capable of achieving these noble goals. They can’t, and they don’t because each outcome listed above is the result of parenting variables that stand outside any specific feeding moment or strategy.
We wish to be clear here, for the same can be said of the traditional, parent-guided weaning process. Just because a mother follows a traditional feeding plan, using a spoon and puréed 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 there are other training variables that stand independent of mealtime that can and will influence dietary habits now and into the future.
Parental intentionality, coupled with resolve, is a better option than “baby knows best” because the baby really doesn’t know best, especially when it comes to ingesting solid foods! Your baby does not possess anything within that can match Mom and Dad’s wisdom, world of knowledge, or intuitive sense of what is in the best interest and welfare of the child.
Our recommendation follows: Instead of idealizing the notion of self-feeding and early independence, it is crucial to align expectations with a baby’s natural timeline of development. Mommy and Daddy directed nutrition is still the best way to go. Most babies start self-feeding successfully around ten months of age because of parental guidance, not in spite of it.
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?
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