Do they really think that wiping down a seat is going to do anything to lessen the allergens. Not hardly. But it does make sure they have space above to stuff their bags before anyone else gets there. I've flown American a lot and cannot remember seeing a peanut served in years. It sounds like just more self centered attention grabbing demands. A little dirt, a puppy dog, and a peanut butter jelly sandwich were seen in the past as God given rights of children.
I ate dirt as a baby in the yard, contacted with nuts, just basically did what humans used to do! Over protection has given us massive allergy situations. Yes, allergys do exists, but sheltering your kids from all and sundry give you a sickly kid overall, and a pain in the butt for all around.
4
I think blaming parents is exactly what the article is advising against. There are multiple pathways to developing an allergy, and we don't understand the reason yet. Also, to imply that children with allergies are sickly is not accurate. Most kids who have allergies are perfectly healthy except for the allergy. Also, many "sickly" kids do not have allergies, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.
2
Lulu, Please bear in mind that "what humans used to do" was to die in great numbers before age 5.
3
There are some kids who won't develop allergies no matter what you feed them. There are some kids who will develop allergies no matter what you feed them. All this research is saying is that there appears to be some kids who may be less likely to develop allergies if you expose them early and regularly to peanuts.
The earlier expert advice to avoid exposure early seems to have been an error, and now the medical folks are trying to give those kids in the third group the best chance to avoid developing an allergy.
The earlier expert advice to avoid exposure early seems to have been an error, and now the medical folks are trying to give those kids in the third group the best chance to avoid developing an allergy.
3
I think your comment is a balanced one. I ate everything I could - fish, shellfish, nuts including peanuts, milk products, meat, all different foods when I was pregnant, but still my child developed food allergies. There is a complex combination of factors at play that we are not aware of.
1
Large-scale studies in East Asian nations to examine prevalence of peanut allergies children, have found that the percentage is very low compared to cohorts in Western nations. So far there hasn't been a conclusive reason as to why this is, other than peanuts and peanut oil are introduced into the diet during infancy. In Taiwan, one of the first foods infants are introduced to is a favorite Taiwanese snack is tofu pudding with melt-in-your-mouth boiled peanuts and topped off by sugarcane syrup. You don't need teeth to eat it.
There was a study in Singapore that even compared rates of peanut allergies of Singaporeans born in Asia and those who were born in Western nations. Unsurprisingly, the rates of peanut allergy was higher in Singaporeans born in the West. My Japanese and Taiwanese relatives realize there are food allergies, but for them and they people they know, the more common ones are milk, eggs, and seafood by far. Peanut allergy is rare.
Perhaps the Western problem of peanut allergies is just another facet of our first-world preoccupation with ridding ourselves of perceived toxins, germs, etc...
There was a study in Singapore that even compared rates of peanut allergies of Singaporeans born in Asia and those who were born in Western nations. Unsurprisingly, the rates of peanut allergy was higher in Singaporeans born in the West. My Japanese and Taiwanese relatives realize there are food allergies, but for them and they people they know, the more common ones are milk, eggs, and seafood by far. Peanut allergy is rare.
Perhaps the Western problem of peanut allergies is just another facet of our first-world preoccupation with ridding ourselves of perceived toxins, germs, etc...
6
I've read peanuts are processed and produced differently in these countries as well. Maybe there is something in the pesticides triggering them.
In Asia, as noted, peanut are boiled. In the west, they are roasted. It is pretty clear that roasting nuts makes them more allergenic (i.e., more likely to stimulate the development of allergy).
1
What are the rates of peanut allergies in other countries? Don't Americans consume more peanuts (in the form of peanut butter) than people elsewhere in the world?
2
I cannot get hold of the numbers anymore, but UK and Netherlands are the other two peanutbutter consuming countries, and the numbers are vastly lower. Peanuts are also basic staple in Thailand and Indonesia, however, I am thinking that UK and Netherlands provided the ancestors to USA, so that number would be more meaningful?
1
I found this information from an Open Access Journal Article called "A global survey of changing patterns of food allergy burden in children"
"Only 10% (9/89) of countries had accurate food allergy prevalence data, based on oral food challenges (OFC). The remaining countries (23/89) had data largely based on parent-reporting of a food allergy diagnosis or symptoms, which is recognised to overestimate the prevalence of food allergy. Based on more accurate measures, the prevalence of clinical (OFC proven) food allergy in preschool children in developed countries is now as high as 10%. In large and rapidly emerging societies of Asia, such as China, where there are documented increases in food allergy, the prevalence of OFC-proven food allergy is now around 7% in pre-schoolers, comparable to the reported prevalence in European regions. While food allergy appears to be increasing in both developed and developing countries in the last 10–15 years, there is a lack of quality comparative data. "
"Only 10% (9/89) of countries had accurate food allergy prevalence data, based on oral food challenges (OFC). The remaining countries (23/89) had data largely based on parent-reporting of a food allergy diagnosis or symptoms, which is recognised to overestimate the prevalence of food allergy. Based on more accurate measures, the prevalence of clinical (OFC proven) food allergy in preschool children in developed countries is now as high as 10%. In large and rapidly emerging societies of Asia, such as China, where there are documented increases in food allergy, the prevalence of OFC-proven food allergy is now around 7% in pre-schoolers, comparable to the reported prevalence in European regions. While food allergy appears to be increasing in both developed and developing countries in the last 10–15 years, there is a lack of quality comparative data. "
1
One issue is that we dark roast our peanut butter and candies and stuff. Other countries don't, and that may change the protein and the reactions. I used Bamba from Israel starting before 6 months with both my kids. We have peanut allergies in fam. Neither boy has any allergy. And for the next kid? Same plan. But I would never have started with peanut butter- it's a different thing. Read the recommendations carefully with your Dr... then give your kid all the foods you love to eat, as early as possible. Wheat and oat cereals, not just rice, for instance. No allergy is anyone's fault, but at least by trying to diversify baby's diet, you are saving yourself a headache from avoiding stuff.
1
Research is done all the time to find new information, especially on the immune system. New studies and data lead to new information. No one is trying to hurt children or make their lifes harder. You have people on both sides of the situation where one child didn't have peanut butter for three years and developed allergies and a baby who had an allergic reaction and ended up in the hospital. Both parents are upset and feel like they failed their childre. When studies happen that find two different conclusions, sometimes people feel experience is the best teacher. But it is possible some of those children were going to develop allergies no matter when they were exposed as well as some would never develope allergies. There is not a way to study or look at these possible. It is these facts that make the studys hard to interpret.
4
And this newspaper does not help by publishing dietary advice that uses anecdotes to declare that science is wrong (see current attack on sugar and past attacks on carbs).
1
I always thought the recommendation against peanuts before age three was about choking hazard, not allergies; but maybe that's because daughter was a three-year-old long before 2000.
1
Has anyone ever done a super in depth statistical study of people with peanut allergies? Probably 80% of the population who have peanut. allergies would agree to give DNA samples, medical records, information about parents, environmental factors, diet history etc.
3
I may not be able to quote grandiose statistics but I know about me. I had two near fatal allergic reactions to nuts. I'm usually very careful about asking about food ingredients at restaurants but I got sloppy one time and put what I thought was gravy on my beef, it ended up being hazelnut sauce and I knew within seconds that I was in trouble. My throat started to close, my face got swollen and was having trouble breathing. My boss thought fast and asked for bottled water to keep my throat hydrated and my colleagues took me in a cab to the nearest hospital where they immediately injected me with adrenaline and cortisone. It took hours for my breathing to normalize. The other time, I had a glass of wine in a restaurant and immediately had an allergic reaction. I later found out that the bartender has just dispensed nuts into a bowl and had passed my wine glass to the waitress by the rim with his hands full of peanut oil/salt. That's all it took. My throat closed and my face swelled so that my eyes closed shut and was immediately taken to emergency hospital and they saved my life. You must get medical assistance within 20 minutes of a severe peanut sllergic reaction or else it's too late - you stop breathing, you die. I thank God that both times I was lucky enough to be around people who took my nut allergies seriously and cared enough about me to quickly get me emergency medical assistance which saved my life.
3
So, would you be willing to provide your medical data for a study? Kay was not asking you to eat nuts/peanuts.. or was I misreading you or Kay?
The US increased peanut production by 20% from 2014 to 2015, but I am sure this increased supply has no connection to needing to find more consumers.
That said, the study that Dr. Greenhawt and Dr. Fauci cite, specifically excluded genetically allergic infants, i.e. those that reacted in a prick test positive to peanut allergenes, extending the study results now to all infants, is therefore not prudent or supported. The study merely says, that if your infant is not allergic to peanuts to begin with and you then feed it peanuts, it may have a lower chance of developing an allergy later, because you desensitize early. Probably the same reason why you should vaccinate early and breast feed. And no, the study does not explain why there are peanut allergies or why you should eat peanuts to begin with. So go prick test the kid/infant prior to doing your own experiment.
That said, the study that Dr. Greenhawt and Dr. Fauci cite, specifically excluded genetically allergic infants, i.e. those that reacted in a prick test positive to peanut allergenes, extending the study results now to all infants, is therefore not prudent or supported. The study merely says, that if your infant is not allergic to peanuts to begin with and you then feed it peanuts, it may have a lower chance of developing an allergy later, because you desensitize early. Probably the same reason why you should vaccinate early and breast feed. And no, the study does not explain why there are peanut allergies or why you should eat peanuts to begin with. So go prick test the kid/infant prior to doing your own experiment.
3
I know the headlines aren't written by the reporters, but is anyone at the editorial level looking at what the headline writers are doing and determining if the headline message is what it should be? A headline that suggests "all" parents and focuses on their emotions or doubt suggests science-doubt that the article doesn't express.
3
Would the scientists have been better off staying silent about avoiding peanuts and peanut products until the age of two, or staying silent now about the new recommendations? If there was successful legal action against them, I'd say yes. Until then, parents have a right to get mad and the doctors have an obligation to give and defend the best advice they can.
I gave my daughter a tiny dab of peanut butter on her tongue when she was about six months old. She nearly died.
Subsequently she nearly died numerous times as she was tasting new foods.
Children will die if there is not adequate medical supervision. Parents beware.
Subsequently she nearly died numerous times as she was tasting new foods.
Children will die if there is not adequate medical supervision. Parents beware.
2
At some point a child is likely to eat peanut material, even if a(n irrational?) decision is made to never allow it. Seems to me that if it is done in a controlled manner (where medical attention could be had right away and where the child is of sufficient age to be effectively treated if allergic reaction happens (do we know such?)), then the sooner a child is fed peanut material, the better, if the latest medical thinking supports early exposure.
Getting enraged at the medical community for making recommendations based on the latest learning doesn't seem to me to be appropriate, and it is certainly not productive.
I have four grown children and ten grandchildren.
Getting enraged at the medical community for making recommendations based on the latest learning doesn't seem to me to be appropriate, and it is certainly not productive.
I have four grown children and ten grandchildren.
5
Well, this is what happens when we look up to the sky, arms outraised, and cry out to our benevolent government to tell us exactly how to raise our children. Instead of using common sense, our 'betters' come up with a plan for our safety, and when it backfires and causes epidemics and death, they can't be held accountable because hey, they meant well!
The peanut fiasco is just one example of a runaway government that is out of control, and unaccountable. Only one candidate REALLY understood that.
The peanut fiasco is just one example of a runaway government that is out of control, and unaccountable. Only one candidate REALLY understood that.
What.are.you.talking.about?
7
I also hope he and the GOP realize what it will be like for a family with no insurance to have to take a child declaring a severe allergy to the emergency room and ending up deep in debt.
3
What happens is that we get more accurate information?
And the "very, very unambiguous" results of of a large scientific trial contradict your common sense and are therefore an "example of a runaway government that is out of control and unaccountable."
You are right. Only one candidate really understood that.
And the "very, very unambiguous" results of of a large scientific trial contradict your common sense and are therefore an "example of a runaway government that is out of control and unaccountable."
You are right. Only one candidate really understood that.
4
There is big effective news on treating peanut allergy. My son is 14 years old and was diagnosed with severe peanut allergy after his first birthday. At age 4 he was hospitalized for breathing problems after ingesting a tiny bite of a nut cookie, when visiting friends. After that, all peanut containing candy was banned from our household for fear of cross-contamination.
I want everyone to know we are currently undergoing what is known as oral immunotherapy, in Israel at a hospital allergy treatment center (we moved to Tel Aviv six years ago). We started a year ago. First they found his threshold level, which was very low. They they worked to increase it every month by actually giving him tiny, gradually increasing portions of peanut. We would get sent home with a peanut flour containing solution which he was to take daily, and report any reactions online. Given the careful way they went about it, his reactions were only occasional and always minor (stomach ache that an antihistamine would treat). He has persevered one year in this program and his allergy is no longer life threatening! He is up to 8 grams of peanut, and at 10 grams he will be able to "eat freely". If all goes smoothly, he will achieve this in one month's time. I believe that this treatment is currently offered in New England Conn, well as in Texas and possibly elsewhere. Though controversial, this is a safe treatment that WORKS in almost all cases, and will significantly improve your child's quality of life.
I want everyone to know we are currently undergoing what is known as oral immunotherapy, in Israel at a hospital allergy treatment center (we moved to Tel Aviv six years ago). We started a year ago. First they found his threshold level, which was very low. They they worked to increase it every month by actually giving him tiny, gradually increasing portions of peanut. We would get sent home with a peanut flour containing solution which he was to take daily, and report any reactions online. Given the careful way they went about it, his reactions were only occasional and always minor (stomach ache that an antihistamine would treat). He has persevered one year in this program and his allergy is no longer life threatening! He is up to 8 grams of peanut, and at 10 grams he will be able to "eat freely". If all goes smoothly, he will achieve this in one month's time. I believe that this treatment is currently offered in New England Conn, well as in Texas and possibly elsewhere. Though controversial, this is a safe treatment that WORKS in almost all cases, and will significantly improve your child's quality of life.
4
Correct; it is known as OIT or oral immunotherapy and is being done at over 80 board certified allergists' offices across the U.S. right now; see www.oit101.org for a list. We live outside of NYC and see Dr. Selter in Suffern, NY; my older son (11) just graduated peanut OIT eating 12 a day and my younger son (9) is doing egg OIT. We were actually featured on Fox5 in the NYC metro area for both our treatments http://www.fox5ny.com/news/217519978-story# and to talk about the confusion surrounding the guideline changes, especially as there is ALSO more and more research showing that early TREATMENT for those already allergic may also be key http://www.fox5ny.com/good-day/228481362-video.
I wonder when they are going to figure out that this "force your baby to sleep on his back" is all nonsense and leads to flat heads and sleep problems. Whoops.
The SIDS rate has dropped by about 50% since we started sleeping babies on their backs. This recommendation won't be going away.
4
A flat head and sleep problems are immeasurably better than death by suffocation if babies are not put "back to sleep"
1
Maybe some children are sensitive to peanut oil adjuvants in some vaccines and this causes allergies to peanuts.
1
Vaccines do not contain peanut oil adjuvants.
2
How could this be? There was a consensus. The science was settled!
1
Why does North America have so much more prevalent peanut allergies than China, when China actually produces and consumes six times as many peanuts (over 13 million metric tons vs 1.8 million in the US) has much less peanut allergy? The US grows most of its peanuts in the south, from Virginia to Florida, Florida as far west as New Mexico. But it only exports peanuts to Mexico, Canada, Europe, and Japan. All of these have seen a rise in peanut allergies. China has its own share of allergies (like shellfish) but peanuts are not a major issue, despite the very high production and consumption.
Has anyone done a comparative study of the peanuts and mold levels in a high-allergy location like the US vs China? Peanuts take a lot of pesticides, so I don't imagine that China's peanuts are cleaner than the US, probably worse in pesticide load. I wonder (who knows--just an idea) if China uses nastier and more effective pesticides on their peanuts, and the lower rate of mold and aflatoxins that results could explain the different in peanut allergy. Just an idea, but the different rates of allergy are striking.
Has anyone done a comparative study of the peanuts and mold levels in a high-allergy location like the US vs China? Peanuts take a lot of pesticides, so I don't imagine that China's peanuts are cleaner than the US, probably worse in pesticide load. I wonder (who knows--just an idea) if China uses nastier and more effective pesticides on their peanuts, and the lower rate of mold and aflatoxins that results could explain the different in peanut allergy. Just an idea, but the different rates of allergy are striking.
Pesticides can cause some damage when sprayed on any crop, peanuts are especially vulnerable compared to other nuts due to their soft shell. That's one problem, Aflatoxin is another, a cancer producing chemical that occurs naturally. Why eat peanuts. Taste, cost, handy, etc., all superficial reasons when considering the risks. Of course we all know, or should, that peanuts are not nuts, but legumes, and to eat a peanut raw is possible, but the taste is a challenge. How long have peanuts been around? Probably 8000 years, but then it was a wild version that evolved through botanical manipulation. What motivated this change from small seeds to larger edible seeds? Probably little more than to see what will happen if......The result, a cash crop with some nasty side effects for some. For those who claim peanuts are safe for everyone, they obviously don't know what they're talking about. I have seen the effects of peanuts on people, in fact, my grandson, Nick, not yet five years old that was taken to ER with life threatening reactions. Like many things nutritionally, we lean toward food with “eternal life indicators”, or at least a hundred plus years of vitality, but usually what's cheap & often in packages. Regular Jiffy peanut butter has sugar & trans fats added. Even the FDA warns trans fats are heart damaging and yet added to Jiffy P.B. Why? Criminal mentality afoot, as usual with food processors whose only goals is to make money. I know those people. No scruples, only greed.
2
I agree the trans fats are unhealthy. Though I do not think it is added to peanut butter out of greed or malice. Originally it was to prevent the product from separating and for keeping it silky smooth.
“There is no peanut-allergic child right now who is peanut allergic because of something their mother or father did,” Dr. Greenhawt said. “It’s not their fault. This is something that was there.”
So therefore it makes no difference what you do? So why give any advice at all?
So therefore it makes no difference what you do? So why give any advice at all?
5
Genetic and environmental factors are both involved. Since we don't know for wsure what exactly causes food allergies, and why it is on the rise (we have guesses, but no proven answers), why put the guilt on the parents?
The advice is to help people. There is nothing to be gained in laying blame is probably the message. Do you blame all people who don't take your advice and you were right?
1
When I was young there were peanut butter sandwiches at every single birthday party. Yes, there were kids with peanut allergies who didn't eat them, but they could sit right beside the children who did, with no problems. When I first read about deadly peanut allergies I thought it was a hoax. Unless peanuts have radically changed since I was young there has to be an another explanation. Avoiding them because peanuts may be dangerous to a toddler is a likely cause. Peanut butter on a teething ring or mixed into cereal is an option. We treat babies as if they are delicate creatures who must be protected from everything when it is their immature immune systems which allow them to learn to cope with the world's possible allergens. People who worry about this should consider getting a pet. Babies who live in houses with one usually have fewer allergies.
8
Recent research seems to indicate that dogs and cats in the home do not introduce much protection. You need horses and maybe some goats, possibly some fowl.
Fortunately both horses and goats are available in "fun sizes" suitable for the average NYC apartment....
Fortunately both horses and goats are available in "fun sizes" suitable for the average NYC apartment....
2
My sister-in-law, who is 47, developed a peanut allergy early. Her parents sent her to school, parties and summer camp with her own food.
She will die if she touches a surface in our house that has peanut oil on it, or if her husband eats a peanut butter sandwich and then kisses her, and once on a hike, she had to get up and move away from us because we were eating peanut M&Ms and the oils volatilized on our breath. We were outdoors, clearly in a well vented area, but we were still toxic to her. (That was years ago. Now we just avoid peanuts when we know she is going to visit, which is infrequent, because she lives out of state.)
My nephew, who is seven and on my side of the family, not genetically related to my SIL, is severely allergic to casein, gluten and eggs. He had failure-to-thrive as an infant, as well as respiratory distress, because of my other sister's-in-law breastmilk. She was eating dairy, wheat and eggs and those proteins were expressed in her milk, which was toxic to him. This was not a house where children were treated as if they were "delicate creatures" (which they are, by the way).
Perhaps it's not that peanuts have changed since you were young but rather that we now have medical identification and intervention which allow more individuals to survive. Which is a good thing, as I love both my sister-in-law and nephew with their severe and life-threatening allergies.
She will die if she touches a surface in our house that has peanut oil on it, or if her husband eats a peanut butter sandwich and then kisses her, and once on a hike, she had to get up and move away from us because we were eating peanut M&Ms and the oils volatilized on our breath. We were outdoors, clearly in a well vented area, but we were still toxic to her. (That was years ago. Now we just avoid peanuts when we know she is going to visit, which is infrequent, because she lives out of state.)
My nephew, who is seven and on my side of the family, not genetically related to my SIL, is severely allergic to casein, gluten and eggs. He had failure-to-thrive as an infant, as well as respiratory distress, because of my other sister's-in-law breastmilk. She was eating dairy, wheat and eggs and those proteins were expressed in her milk, which was toxic to him. This was not a house where children were treated as if they were "delicate creatures" (which they are, by the way).
Perhaps it's not that peanuts have changed since you were young but rather that we now have medical identification and intervention which allow more individuals to survive. Which is a good thing, as I love both my sister-in-law and nephew with their severe and life-threatening allergies.
4
So basically, it was okay to exclude those kids who couldn't eat the PB sandwiches? That idea about peanut butter in teething rings is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. I ate peanut butter while pregnant, breastfeeding, and around my son. First LICK of peanut butter at one yr resulted in a doctors visit, and the allergy now can be life threatening to him. Peanut allergies have risen since you were a kid, and the potential for an anaphylactic reaction is very high with there's allergies.
Perhaps the question to be researched is why food allergies are so commonplace.
Granted, I was born in the late 50's but I knew ONE classmate who had asthma, ONE classmate who was hypoglycemic. That was it. Not a single person in grade school through high school suffered from lactose intolerance, gluten intolerance, nut allergies or even environmental sensitivities. Even in college I didn't know anyone with dietary restrictions.
I'm a biologist so I get all the science although I question a lot of it's validity. I think parents are being foolish trying to avoid allergies prophylactically. A college professor once told our class: "There are no capital 'T' truths in biology; there are only little 't' truths and those are only true until some one comes along and proves them false".
Granted, I was born in the late 50's but I knew ONE classmate who had asthma, ONE classmate who was hypoglycemic. That was it. Not a single person in grade school through high school suffered from lactose intolerance, gluten intolerance, nut allergies or even environmental sensitivities. Even in college I didn't know anyone with dietary restrictions.
I'm a biologist so I get all the science although I question a lot of it's validity. I think parents are being foolish trying to avoid allergies prophylactically. A college professor once told our class: "There are no capital 'T' truths in biology; there are only little 't' truths and those are only true until some one comes along and proves them false".
9
Statistics sometimes introduce reality: What about peanut allergies? •About 0.6 – 1.0 % of people have peanut allergy, which can vary from mild to severe. Nearly 20% of peanut allergies can be outgrown.
Four times as many people are allergic to seafood than to peanuts. Lets do the math, taking the mid number between 0.006 and 1, or 0.008, times 310000000 equals 2,480,000 people. Not many, not a big deal to most folks, but a very big deal to those who actually have the allergy. Sensitivity is another matter, but many more would fall under that category for all kinds of things.
Four times as many people are allergic to seafood than to peanuts. Lets do the math, taking the mid number between 0.006 and 1, or 0.008, times 310000000 equals 2,480,000 people. Not many, not a big deal to most folks, but a very big deal to those who actually have the allergy. Sensitivity is another matter, but many more would fall under that category for all kinds of things.
3
Because the other ones died as babies before they even made it to school, so you never had a chance to meet them.
3
Believe me, they are working on the "why." Anyone who finds the answer will likely win a Nobel prize. But very hard to study, much like finding what causes genius intellect.
Obviously, there are children with peanut allergies that are
life threatening, and their parents must be super vigilant. Don't
minimize the treat, it must be a constant worry. Give the parents
your support.
Also, if the science now indicates that early exposure to peanuts may mitigate
developing an allergy to peanuts, don't ridicule the science. It is what
it is...an objective opinion. Take it or leave it, your decision.
life threatening, and their parents must be super vigilant. Don't
minimize the treat, it must be a constant worry. Give the parents
your support.
Also, if the science now indicates that early exposure to peanuts may mitigate
developing an allergy to peanuts, don't ridicule the science. It is what
it is...an objective opinion. Take it or leave it, your decision.
9
Science is imperfect. It is our best attempt to make rationale sense of the world we live in. In fact, the null hypothesis is a central tenant of science in which we assume there is no relationship between cause and effect until an experiment proves otherwise.
It floors me how some individuals can so casually dismiss the best scientific efforts and evidence. Yet take faith in a religion that is unprovable, unknowable, and untouchable. I have the utmost respect for religion, but the dichotomy is blinding.
It floors me how some individuals can so casually dismiss the best scientific efforts and evidence. Yet take faith in a religion that is unprovable, unknowable, and untouchable. I have the utmost respect for religion, but the dichotomy is blinding.
Many people who have commented seem to believe that peanut allergies are a phenomenon that is occurring primarily in affluent white children. (One writer even referred to these kids with allergies as white "special snowflakes.")The statistics on peanut allergies suggest otherwise. According to several sources, which you can all look up, the children most likely to develop a severe peanut allergy are boys with DNA verified African ancestry.
I agree that the fear of peanuts is exagerrated and, tragically, this fear may have contributed to a spike in the number of children afflicted with severe allergies. I disagree with name calling and the scorn directed at parents who tried to do everything right and followed their doctor's orders but found themselves in the terrifying situation of having a child with a life threatening allergy.
I agree that the fear of peanuts is exagerrated and, tragically, this fear may have contributed to a spike in the number of children afflicted with severe allergies. I disagree with name calling and the scorn directed at parents who tried to do everything right and followed their doctor's orders but found themselves in the terrifying situation of having a child with a life threatening allergy.
10
My neighbors 6yr old son developed asthma last year. The mom took him for allergy testing. The blood test showed he was allergic to nuts, grass, wheat, trees, cats, dogs, etc. She immediately got rid of the cat, threw all the rugs out, has him on a strict diet, no peanut butter, nothing made with flour, won't let him outside etc. He was also given an epi pen. He still has asthma, none of the changes did anything to get rid of the kids asthma. I asked the mom if he ever showed an allergic reaction to the 50 things he tested positive for and she said no. I told her to let the kid be a kid and stop torturing him banning everything in creation
9
Eczema, asthma, food allergies, and environmental allergies all share a common genetic link. Having one condition increases the odds of having one of the others. That is not to say that cat allergies are causing one's asthma. But if an indvidiual has a bad enough cat allergy, being around them can certain set one's asthma.
Food allergy tests are tricky. In the absence of a known reaction, a positive test only indicates the POSSIBILITY of an allergy to the food. There can be false positives. Any allergist worth their salt should be able to explain this to their patients, and discuss risks/benefits of a supervised food challenge. But even if allergic, it is unlikely the nut allergy causes the asthma. However, if allergic to nuts, having asthma is a risk factor for more severe reactions.
Food allergy tests are tricky. In the absence of a known reaction, a positive test only indicates the POSSIBILITY of an allergy to the food. There can be false positives. Any allergist worth their salt should be able to explain this to their patients, and discuss risks/benefits of a supervised food challenge. But even if allergic, it is unlikely the nut allergy causes the asthma. However, if allergic to nuts, having asthma is a risk factor for more severe reactions.
I grew up with a severe allergy to both peanuts and tree nuts in the United States. Long before any school or camp provided a peanut free environment. I had my share of ER incidents, carried (and occasionally used) epipen and learned to avoid nuts.
21 years ago I moved to Israel where nut allergies were completely unheard of. Locals heard that I could not eat peanut butter or any of the delicious nut covered delights, but didn't understand. The most frustrating and difficult product to avoid is enormously popular national snack "Bamba" which is a corn based peanut butter puff. An ideal first finger food for infants, it easily dissolves in the mouth. The sticky dust from this snack can contaminate fingers and becomes airborne, which for an allergy sufferer can be deadly. I expected that in the last 20 years Israel would catch up with the US in terms of peanut allergies and awareness. It just hasn't happened. People still don't understand what a peanut allergy is and everyone is just as enamored with the peanut snack as they were when I arrived. My allergist explains it as follows: There is a window of opportunity in the child's development when the introduction of peanut products does not provoke or cause a peanut allergy but rather prevents it from occurring. Parents are frustrated to have medical advice flip flop but I can tell you that peanut allergies here are so very rare and the practice of giving infants Bamba from an early age is practically universal.
21 years ago I moved to Israel where nut allergies were completely unheard of. Locals heard that I could not eat peanut butter or any of the delicious nut covered delights, but didn't understand. The most frustrating and difficult product to avoid is enormously popular national snack "Bamba" which is a corn based peanut butter puff. An ideal first finger food for infants, it easily dissolves in the mouth. The sticky dust from this snack can contaminate fingers and becomes airborne, which for an allergy sufferer can be deadly. I expected that in the last 20 years Israel would catch up with the US in terms of peanut allergies and awareness. It just hasn't happened. People still don't understand what a peanut allergy is and everyone is just as enamored with the peanut snack as they were when I arrived. My allergist explains it as follows: There is a window of opportunity in the child's development when the introduction of peanut products does not provoke or cause a peanut allergy but rather prevents it from occurring. Parents are frustrated to have medical advice flip flop but I can tell you that peanut allergies here are so very rare and the practice of giving infants Bamba from an early age is practically universal.
9
The United states feeds it's people on too many chemicals. We have a devotion to cheap foods with little forsight to possible damages. from GMO corn to HFCS to articifical sweetners it is huge list. For alligies see:
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2016/common-additive-may-be-why-you-have-fo...
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2016/common-additive-may-be-why-you-have-fo...
3
Lumping GMOs and chemical sweeteners in the same category is not scientifically valid
1
While science does many things well it is not good at proving that any substance presents no threat to people's health. If all the tests done to prove the safety of GMO foods were done on tobacco it too would probably pass with flying colors.
Interesting, but her research thus far is preliminary and published in mostly 3rd tier journals without any human data in vivo.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=rockwell+AND+butylhydroquinone
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=rockwell+AND+butylhydroquinone
As parents, we instinctively felt that withholding peanuts / peanut butter from our baby was the wrong thing to do. We handed out peanut butter sandwiches and put peanut butter on apple in the first 15 months. Our reasoning was that, like vaccinations, the body will react quickly and accept the food and develop any defences quickly. It's a question of building immunity through exposure. We didn't ask or take any advice. Also, our baby plays in the dirt a lot and gets filthy dirty. The hygiene theory seems powerfully attractive and reeks of common sense.
4
Yay for you! Actually some studies suggest the critical window for tolerance is between 4-6 months of age. So even 15 months is too late.
2
WELL articles often leave out the facts that would allow readers to form their own opinion of the subject matter and avoid hysteria.
In this article were told it was a "large" study. Why not just tell us the exact number - that 600 children were included? The children in the study were already at risk for developing peanut allergies. This was based on the fact that they all already had an allergy to eggs. An allergy to eggs is a predictor of having or developing a peanut allergy.
The study was developed because it was observed that Israeli children who routinely eat peanut containing products from infancy were far less likely to develop a peanut allergy than children in the UK who had a similar ethnic background.
Of the children in the study who were introduced to peanuts early 3% still developed an allergy by age 5. That means, of course, that 1 out of every 33 high-risk children who were given peanuts early developed a peanut allergy.
In contrast 17% of the high-risk children who were not introduced to peanuts until age 5 developed an allergy - approximately 1 out of 6. That's a substantial difference.
In the general population the risk for developing a peanut allergy is approximately .6%.
Peanut allergies are still unavoidable. We don't have to blame parents. But early introduction of peanuts, under controlled circumstances, appears to be the best way to avoid as many allergies as possible. Perhaps that first taste of peanuts should be at a well baby visit?
In this article were told it was a "large" study. Why not just tell us the exact number - that 600 children were included? The children in the study were already at risk for developing peanut allergies. This was based on the fact that they all already had an allergy to eggs. An allergy to eggs is a predictor of having or developing a peanut allergy.
The study was developed because it was observed that Israeli children who routinely eat peanut containing products from infancy were far less likely to develop a peanut allergy than children in the UK who had a similar ethnic background.
Of the children in the study who were introduced to peanuts early 3% still developed an allergy by age 5. That means, of course, that 1 out of every 33 high-risk children who were given peanuts early developed a peanut allergy.
In contrast 17% of the high-risk children who were not introduced to peanuts until age 5 developed an allergy - approximately 1 out of 6. That's a substantial difference.
In the general population the risk for developing a peanut allergy is approximately .6%.
Peanut allergies are still unavoidable. We don't have to blame parents. But early introduction of peanuts, under controlled circumstances, appears to be the best way to avoid as many allergies as possible. Perhaps that first taste of peanuts should be at a well baby visit?
13
"A new parent who gives peanuts to a baby “could be sentencing them to death,” said Peggy Cottle, of Dayton, Ohio, who has a child with a peanut allergy."
Ugh. Who is Peggy Cottle and why do I care what she has to say? OF COURSE it makes sense to expose kids to different foods, peanuts included. Just like it makes sense to have them play in the dirt or walk to the bus stop.
Ugh. Who is Peggy Cottle and why do I care what she has to say? OF COURSE it makes sense to expose kids to different foods, peanuts included. Just like it makes sense to have them play in the dirt or walk to the bus stop.
7
Although I agree with the new guidelines, I cannot fault Peggy Cottle for her comment. Screening mammograms are known to save lives by detecting breast cancer (hopefully early). Yet it involves some radiation, and there is a (low) risk there that over time it could in and of itself trigger cancer.
So for every X lives saved by mammogram early detection, a smaller number Y will get cancer from the radiation of the mammogram. By showing X outnumbers Y do we make a recommendation to get screening.
Similarly, yes there will be some infants who unfortunately may have a reaction to peanut when introduced as recommended at 4-6 months of age, but we hope a greater number will have averted an allergy through early introduction.
So for every X lives saved by mammogram early detection, a smaller number Y will get cancer from the radiation of the mammogram. By showing X outnumbers Y do we make a recommendation to get screening.
Similarly, yes there will be some infants who unfortunately may have a reaction to peanut when introduced as recommended at 4-6 months of age, but we hope a greater number will have averted an allergy through early introduction.
Well, not in lead contaminated areas. If my kids play in dirt the will get lead poisoning. Watch the advice you give if not a dr.
I can't help but think of the old CYA factor here - "Don't blame me / don't sue me, it's what the AAP says!"
Let's put this label on the bottom of every Rx and pamphlet that doctors give out:
Warning: Insurance premiums and fear of litigation may also be hazardous to your health.
Let's put this label on the bottom of every Rx and pamphlet that doctors give out:
Warning: Insurance premiums and fear of litigation may also be hazardous to your health.
I've read that peanut allergies have been linked to the prevalence of genetically-modified soy and to soy-based formula for babies (soy is a legume, as are peanuts). If I were a new parent, I would make sure to give my infant only GMO-free and organic peanut and soy products. Additionally, I wouldn't be so fast to encourage a toddler to eat dirt, as so many posters here recommend. I'm well aware of the importance of building a healthy gut flora, but unfortunately in our world that dirt is going to contain pesticides, arsenic, asbestos from car brakes, etc. No easy choices for us parents I'm afraid.
4
Can you provide a link or reference for where you read this?
1
I didn't have peanut butter until I was in my 20's. Even the smell of it turned my stomach when I was a kid. Now as an adult, there isn't a day that I don't eat peanut butter, and lots of it. Usually with spoon out of the jar, with no sugar added.
3
Monsanto?
1
Guidelines change. When I had my babies we were told to put them to sleep only on their stomachs. Now we find out that putting them to sleep on their backs cut sids rates by 50%. Many of these guidelines are misleading. A mother doesn't know what to believe to keep a child safe!
3
Well it looks like all infants will need to be tested first before the introduction to peanuts. I breastfed my child for 10 months, enjoying peanut butter sandwiches the whole time. Little did I know at the time....My daughter projectile vomited, cried, and got rashes and we switched to a formula. She was tested for allergies and was positive on all nuts and a few other foods and is severely allergic to this day at age 15. And additionally, airlines, PLEASE STOP serving peanuts. Is there no other food in our developed countries and no one has the imagination to find a substitute? Allergic people react if they are near and in the air. Not a myth!
10
A good friend with severe peanut sensitivity described how she drove past a Virginia Peanut processing plant on the highway, and had an allergic reaction due to airborne particles/smells.
I know only one person with a severe peanut allergy...the 73 yr old husband of a close friend. I doubt anyone still living has any idea what he was fed as a baby/toddler, but his allergy is very severe. He and his wife rarely accept invitations to eat at the homes of friends - just too risky. Restaurants are actually safer but they often need to speak to the chef.
Interestingly, they have 3 children and 8 grandchildren and none have his severe allergy.
One can't help but wonder why are there so many now? This fact certainly changes what other children can eat - the PB&J lunch stable is now verboten in virtually all schools and I miss peanuts on flights.
I do think pediatricians today have some pretty kookie ideas. My children were started on rice cereal at one month, fruits introduced next, veggies and the egg yolks and finally meat. When they could eat finger foods, a PB&J in small pieces. I breast fed and then weaned to skim milk as my children choked on whole milk - the consistency of skim was more like breast milk. Now, children are kept on formula to age 1, and are to have few, if any, foods. This means that babies are still having feedings during the night up to one and beyond. Add that to insistence that babies share a room with parents until age one, there must be some utterly exhausted mothers out there, especially those who work outside the home.
I worshipped my pediatrician, but have a hard time trusting them today.
Interestingly, they have 3 children and 8 grandchildren and none have his severe allergy.
One can't help but wonder why are there so many now? This fact certainly changes what other children can eat - the PB&J lunch stable is now verboten in virtually all schools and I miss peanuts on flights.
I do think pediatricians today have some pretty kookie ideas. My children were started on rice cereal at one month, fruits introduced next, veggies and the egg yolks and finally meat. When they could eat finger foods, a PB&J in small pieces. I breast fed and then weaned to skim milk as my children choked on whole milk - the consistency of skim was more like breast milk. Now, children are kept on formula to age 1, and are to have few, if any, foods. This means that babies are still having feedings during the night up to one and beyond. Add that to insistence that babies share a room with parents until age one, there must be some utterly exhausted mothers out there, especially those who work outside the home.
I worshipped my pediatrician, but have a hard time trusting them today.
3
I have always favored the evidence about peanuts not being the problem, but toxic friends carried along, like mold, or other toxins delivered via the peanut. Think, like the raw milk is so good for you and the Lysteria is deadly. Fresh peanuts, handled correctly, eaten at my childhood fav, Mr. Peanut Store, so yummy. Old moldy peanuts, causing allergies. Mr. Peanut roasted the peanuts delectibly, and they were spinning around on a hot tray, their essence filling the shop. Peanut butter was treated with high heat, like all processed foods in the 1950's 1960's 1970's. It is not the lowly peanut upsetting the allergies, except where the allergy is peanut proteins specifically. It is not the peanut where there might be sulfites upsetting the children. Cook your peanut butter if you are worried, or buy freshly ground fresh roasted peanuts. All nuts go rancid, beware this as well, and heat will kill some of it.
maybe. heat changes the protein structure. We need more science research.
1
There is data that boiling peanuts make them less allergenic, whereas roasting them intensifies it.
1
Roasting is actually part of the problem, as it intensifies the allergenic proteins. Which is why the commenters here shouldn't really be suggesting giving kids peanut butter; that's not the new recommendation. But you are correct about mold, or rather, fungus. There are deadly strains of fungi that appear in peanut butter, but less so in organic peanut butters. This has nothing to do with allergy, though.
Well, I at least tried to say something significant, with no visible sign of appreciation as I attempted to scratch out the nasty underbelly of American thought, itself something quite revealing/ Thus American are programmed to rep historical miscalculations which lead is all into silly and silly explanations of what the future will bring. whiter it be productive to insight, or not. PITY THOUGH!
As a parent of kids with severe nut allergies, I've been watching these studies with a growing sense of regret for years. This recommendation didn't come out of the blue. To those of you who are inclined to dismiss this issue entirely, you shouldn't; food allergies are much more common now than they were, and for those kids who have them, it can be a life-and-death issue. I've seen both my kids react; one had to go to the hospital. Adults can fend for themselves, but it's unnerving to have to trust on a daily basis that a well-meaning adult or peer won't accidentally give your kid a poisonous treat, and that if it happens their caregivers will be able to recognize the signs and administer the Epi-pen correctly in time. Minimizing the presence of allergens really helps.
6
Makes you wonder about Global Warming when you read that respected scientists were completely wrong.
1
No, it doesn't.
6
My mother always said to us "you have to eat a pound of dirt before you're grown." We did not "eat" dirt, but we played in the dirt, we were not constrantly assaulted with anti-bacterial products, and we were not limited in our food choices. My 2 year old grandson happily walks around licking a spoonful of peanut butter because my daughter gave him peanut butter in his infancy.
I am healthy, my 4 siblings are healthy, my daughter is healthy and my grandson is healthy without a million protections against the environment we have to all coexist with.
I am healthy, my 4 siblings are healthy, my daughter is healthy and my grandson is healthy without a million protections against the environment we have to all coexist with.
2
Any time an infant/very young child is NOT exposed to a potential allergen, it increases chances of developing exactly that allergy, c.f. cats. This makes perfect sense. And remember that asthma risk is increased in children from overly-clean/germophobe homes.
4
Of course they're lashing out. They won't admit that their own crazy overprotective behavior is the cause of their kids' problems.
3
When my son was a toddler, he knew instinctively he could not eat peanut butter. He refused it every time. I was a new mother and knew nothing of peanut allergies and I'm so glad I never forced him to eat it. People can live without eating peanut butter. Please be careful everyone and listen to your babies.
1
What we have now is an epidemic of iatrogenic (doctor-caused) peanut allergies. By recommending that parents avoid all peanuts until at least the age of 3, they set the stage for susceptible children to develop life-threatening peanut allergies.
Unfortunately, the increased number of seriously allergic children reduces the exposure of all children to peanuts, because worried parents and schools make legitimate, reasonable decisions to protect vulnerable people.
Unfortunately, the increased number of seriously allergic children reduces the exposure of all children to peanuts, because worried parents and schools make legitimate, reasonable decisions to protect vulnerable people.
My heart goes out to parents that have to live with the anxiety and fear of severe food allergies because they truly are and can be deadly, but at the same time it is increasingly alarming how prevalent these issues are, either in reality or as they may be aggrandized by a level of projected hypochondria.
Anecdotally there are a number of parents from my own son's group of friends that have all manner of sensitivities and issues, from peanut avoidance to not even being able to be in the sun for moments.
I don't know the answer, and I don't want to be glib to people suffering and worried legitimately but there is also sadly sometimes seems a sort of fashion around the drama of it all. Some certainly exacerbate the problem but not exposing their kids to anything.
Anecdotally there are a number of parents from my own son's group of friends that have all manner of sensitivities and issues, from peanut avoidance to not even being able to be in the sun for moments.
I don't know the answer, and I don't want to be glib to people suffering and worried legitimately but there is also sadly sometimes seems a sort of fashion around the drama of it all. Some certainly exacerbate the problem but not exposing their kids to anything.
2
Without peanut butter on whole wheat bread at school, I would have been a very malnourished child.
4
Way more children die of car accidents, unsafe gun storage, drowning, etc. than die of peanuts. Should parents demand a ban on cars, swimming pools and guns at home?
Think about what you wrote. No one is "banning" your peanuts. But, parents should absolutely "ban" peanuts from children with life threatening peanut allergies.
1
I'm tired of not getting to eat my peanuts on flights because someone has a peanut allergy. I'm all for the new guidelines. When I grew up no one had peanut allergies. Get over it and acclimate your children to the wonders of the peanut!
Really? Your life is bothered by a four-hour restriction on instant gratification? You're kidding I bet.
1
My daughter's mother in law is a nurse. She has a theory that some of these food allergies such as peanut allergies may be related to antibiotics given to mothers at the time of the child's birth. I wonder if anyone has examined statistics to determine if there is any indication that the two may be correlated.
2
Before writing about a conjecture like that, take a look at the effects of a strep b infection on a baby. Not. Good. Keep the wacky theories in-house, please.
In addition to preventing peanut allergies in thousands of youngsters, the new guidelines should induce some skepticism of the concept of "settled Science", so beloved of the Climate Change cheerleaders. The pediatricians who advised parents to avoid feeding peanut products to their young children were acting on the best science of the time, which has collapsed in the face of evidence to the contrary. It is out of place to blame them for not knowing this in advance of new scientific evidence.
A similar phenomenon has recently been reported in the Times whereby fats: trans fats, poly-unsaturated fats, etc. have been dethroned as the arch-villians of heart disease in favor carbohydrates, particularly sugars. Another case of settled science getting unsettled.
A similar phenomenon has recently been reported in the Times whereby fats: trans fats, poly-unsaturated fats, etc. have been dethroned as the arch-villians of heart disease in favor carbohydrates, particularly sugars. Another case of settled science getting unsettled.
A smart scientist questions everything.
A smart policy maker questions everything... but then acts on the preponderance of evidence.
A smart policy maker questions everything... but then acts on the preponderance of evidence.
2
As a parent of a kid with life-threatening allergies to all nuts, I have a different perspective than many (not all) of these commentators. My child reacted to pb (violently- 911 call) at 11 months in 2012. This was during the time when there were basically NO recommendations on what to do, and the LEAP study (showing early introduction was preventative) was not yet available. Our pede still stuck by 3 years so we did this on our own.
It's hard for those of us in this window of time to not feel heartbroken that somehow, if we had just known this earlier, maybe we could have prevented it. I think that was one of the points of the article.
Also, I want to note to many of these commentators that I am so thankful that the people my child and I interact with are almost always amazingly supportive and thoughtful as we navigate our way through a world that can of course never be made risk free, nor would we expect it to be so. But our teachers, friends, other parents, restaurant servers, flight attendants, and everyone we know couldn't be more supportive and thoughtful to my child. It's a bit of a contrast with what you see here online, where many of these other commentators still seem to be convinced that the food allergy epidemic a) doesn't exist, and b) is somehow to be blamed on helicopter parenting. Thankfully, in my real world at least, there is a strong common understanding and support system for these little kids who are dealing with a life-threatening condition.
It's hard for those of us in this window of time to not feel heartbroken that somehow, if we had just known this earlier, maybe we could have prevented it. I think that was one of the points of the article.
Also, I want to note to many of these commentators that I am so thankful that the people my child and I interact with are almost always amazingly supportive and thoughtful as we navigate our way through a world that can of course never be made risk free, nor would we expect it to be so. But our teachers, friends, other parents, restaurant servers, flight attendants, and everyone we know couldn't be more supportive and thoughtful to my child. It's a bit of a contrast with what you see here online, where many of these other commentators still seem to be convinced that the food allergy epidemic a) doesn't exist, and b) is somehow to be blamed on helicopter parenting. Thankfully, in my real world at least, there is a strong common understanding and support system for these little kids who are dealing with a life-threatening condition.
23
No peanut allergies here. I take my peanut butter straight - no jelly, no bread.
6
I never heard of anyone having a peanut allergy growing up, so the huge increase of the sensitivity over the last 10-15 years is mystifying to me. Of course, back when I was young, we also played outside every day, got dirty, ate less processed foods, and washed up with plain soap and water. I wonder if the near antiseptic nature of many people's lives now, coupled with an overuse of antibacterial soaps and cleaners, is part of what has caused this seeming epidemic.
11
As a 62 year old with a life time peanut allergy, yes there have always been people allergic to peanuts around. In my family there are a variety of allergies - all to different foods or environmental aspects, including cod liver oil that was given as a regular health preventative and almost killed my brother. All of us, including my 70 plus year old brothers and I all played outside, at ranch grown beef and vegetables. It did not make a difference.
7
Why is it newsworthy that parents whose children have a peanut allergy are unhappy with the news that science shows that feeding children peanuts at a very early age mitigates the likelihood of getting such an allergy? Those parents have a strong set of emotions revolving around this subject, and putting such views in the headlines just confuses people who still have the choice. It should be in the same category as stories about parents who are skeptical of vaccination and scientists whoare skeptical of the reality of human causes for climate change. The press must not just take an approach that "science demonstrates this, but some people are skeptical" - as if those views deserve equal weight. IT's just one step from here to fake "news."
8
I don't think this is at all similar to the vaccine "debate." The overwhelming majority of research out there suggests that vaccines are effective and do not cause autism. There is a general consensus in the medical community about it.
Allergies are a completely different story. No one's sure yet what has caused the insane rise in the number of children with allergies, and every single allergist I've gone to has something completely different to say about my son's allergies thus far.
Parents aren't upset because they're doubtful or unsure about the science. Parents are upset because something that is so common and so life threatening is still so shrouded in mystery.
Allergies are a completely different story. No one's sure yet what has caused the insane rise in the number of children with allergies, and every single allergist I've gone to has something completely different to say about my son's allergies thus far.
Parents aren't upset because they're doubtful or unsure about the science. Parents are upset because something that is so common and so life threatening is still so shrouded in mystery.
6
I'm confused at what there could be to lash-out about. Isn't changing a behavior/practice a reasonable response to a change in the medical community's understanding about a topic? Or, do you expect that the science on the subject of allergies would remain stagnant and that once-held beliefs about a topic would never be re-examined and re-evaluated? I sympathize with the parents who wish they had this information for their children when they were young, but for the ones who are actually angry about the new recommendation - what exactly is your problem?
12
I'm not sure anger is the appropriate response. However, you can see anecdotal evidence in a lot of these cases, including mine, where parents did in fact introduce peanuts well before age 3 and it resulted in severe allergic reactions. And, by severe I mean your standing over your baby while they are struggling to breathe. Not something I imagine many people would like to experience.
So, when the media reports explain the reccomendations in sound bites and headlines, it's really putting a lot of people at risk. Handing your 6 month old a clump of peanut butter for example, could very well end in tragedy if the allergy is present.
In my opinion the reccomendations, and the messaging by NIH, is quite irresponsible. And that's quite evident by many of the comments we see here.
So, when the media reports explain the reccomendations in sound bites and headlines, it's really putting a lot of people at risk. Handing your 6 month old a clump of peanut butter for example, could very well end in tragedy if the allergy is present.
In my opinion the reccomendations, and the messaging by NIH, is quite irresponsible. And that's quite evident by many of the comments we see here.
3
Almost 30 years ago, I was taught in medical school that the function of the infant thymus was to assist in the development of the immune system's ability to distinguish between what was foreign (and hence dangerous), and self (and hence, tolerated). In pediatrics, I was taught that infants should be exclusively breastfed until 6 months old, and that early exposure to solids, any solids, induced allergies. I was taught that infants should avoid exposure to allergenic foods until 2-3 years old. "But what about the thymus, and the education of the immune system in the first year of life?", I asked. I never got a good answer - it was just, "This is how we do it." About 15 years ago, I read that in Israel, where infants are given a teething food, Bamba, that is similar to a Cheez Doodle, but with peanut powder instead of cheese powder, there is a much lower incidence of peanut allergy. From that point on, I've been recommending to parents that they do a poor man's skin test by 4-5 months old, by dabbing a bit of smooth peanut butter between the chin and the lower lip a few times over a week or so. If redness develops,wash it off, apply Benadryl liquid, and avoid that going forward. If no redness develops, swipe a little peanut butter on their tongues often. Do the same test with shrimp, egg white, cow's milk, sesame, tree nut butters. Once I've explained the rationale and the research to the parents, they don't question it - they go ahead and do it, understanding why.
20
I have worked in EMS for nearly 50 years. Responses for severe allergic reactions were rare 30 years ago. Most food allergies were the result of strawberries, chocolate or seafood. While uncomfortable, they were almost never life threatening. I don't ever remember one from peanuts back then. And, certainly growing up, peanuts and peanut butter were staple foods for every kid in the neighborhood. The deadly allergic reactions came from medications (especially injected antibiotics) and insect stings. In fact, the forerunner of the EpiPen was known as a "Bee Sting Kit." I do also question whether there are as many truly life threatening reactions as we are led to believe. I have certainly responded to kids and adults who have stuck themselves with an EpiPen at the first little itch. I believe that many suffered more from paranoia and panic than allergies. Probably not a problem for the kids, but the epinephrine is potentially deadly to an older adult. But, why not? Some of the material out there would make you believe that peanuts are deadlier than high level nuclear waste. And, that just being the same room with them will kill you. The real question is why have all of these allergies popped up in literally a generation? Unless you are a strict creationist, you understand that evolution doesn't occur that quickly. There must be something that we were doing differently then as compared to now. Is this another case of affluenza? We need to find that out to solve this problem.
12
First, these parents are not the first to suffer whiplash from a sudden reversal of pediatric advice. Until and unless a mechanism whereby peanut allergies are prevented or triggered by early exposure. it seems that parents are best off following the common sense approach of introducing new foods one at a time and observing their infants carefully for any signs of allergic reaction.
Second, life threatening nut allergies are nothing new. Kids who grew up eating dirt in the good ol' days got them too.
Third, there are other good reasons to avoid peanuts and peanut butter, such as the widespread contamination with aflatoxin. It would be interesting to see if the incidence of liver cancer etc declines among people raised with an irrational peanut phobia.
Second, life threatening nut allergies are nothing new. Kids who grew up eating dirt in the good ol' days got them too.
Third, there are other good reasons to avoid peanuts and peanut butter, such as the widespread contamination with aflatoxin. It would be interesting to see if the incidence of liver cancer etc declines among people raised with an irrational peanut phobia.
7
Hmm, I think I'll go with the scientific majority opinion rather than a few angry, tweeting parents.
11
It's not surprising that American parents view anything with skepticism. Just look at how parents shun vaccines, or even let their children out of the sight for one minute to play.
Other children around the world seem to do just fine, although a majority of them have government run single payer health care for updated and frequent visits to the doctor if there were problems.
We have a lot to learn
Other children around the world seem to do just fine, although a majority of them have government run single payer health care for updated and frequent visits to the doctor if there were problems.
We have a lot to learn
7
While breastfeeding is an important component in infant food allergy prevention, replenishing the gut with Clostridia is probably the most important therapy for eliminating these allergies. The cephalosporin and sulfonamide antibiotics given to babies can wipe out these critical bacteria, making some types of foods indigestible and/or cause allergic reactions. Check out the work on gut microbiota done by Martin Blaser.
Re " 'There is no peanut-allergic child right now who is peanut allergic because of something their mother or father did,' Dr. Greenhawt said."
That's obviously false. The parents withheld peanuts, and as a result their kids were much more likely to develop an allergy. That's what this new research says.
The parents were acting on the best available medical advice, and there's no reason for them to blame themselves, but facts are facts. I would say The doctor is sugar-coating the news, but sugar has replaced peanut butter as the new Evil Food.
That's obviously false. The parents withheld peanuts, and as a result their kids were much more likely to develop an allergy. That's what this new research says.
The parents were acting on the best available medical advice, and there's no reason for them to blame themselves, but facts are facts. I would say The doctor is sugar-coating the news, but sugar has replaced peanut butter as the new Evil Food.
4
You could say it was something the medical community did. If you want to get anal about it.
1
If you read the comments many parents did introduce peanuts prior to one and some infants still had a reaction.
"The about-face on peanuts has stunned parents around the country who are coping with the challenges of severe peanut allergies."
You cannot blame the parents for being shocked and stunned unless you are the father or mother of a child with severe peanut allergy, They have to deal with the severe, life threatening anaphylactic reactions their children face when they are asked to go through all these experimental trials. When the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is confused on this issue and keep changing their position of course, the parents will get frustrated too. There is no permanent solution for peanut allergy other than avoiding peanuts, that is almost impossible. Medical Science is not advanced in this field .The Allergy Specialists and the National Institute of Allergy has not discovered any cures for this problem in spite of their several years of education,training and research. Only parents know their frustration.
You cannot blame the parents for being shocked and stunned unless you are the father or mother of a child with severe peanut allergy, They have to deal with the severe, life threatening anaphylactic reactions their children face when they are asked to go through all these experimental trials. When the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is confused on this issue and keep changing their position of course, the parents will get frustrated too. There is no permanent solution for peanut allergy other than avoiding peanuts, that is almost impossible. Medical Science is not advanced in this field .The Allergy Specialists and the National Institute of Allergy has not discovered any cures for this problem in spite of their several years of education,training and research. Only parents know their frustration.
7
This is simply not true. I work in a school and I have seen many children cured of their peanut allergies through exposure treatment. It works.
1
For this baby boomer, peanut butter was allowed from K-12. Never saw a single kid have a problem with a peanut allergy. Now, one kid has a peanut allergy and hundreds of kids can't enjoy one of the cheapest lunches you can make, the good old PB & J.
If my kid had a peanut allergy, I would not sue the school to ban peanuts.
If my kid had a peanut allergy, I would not sue the school to ban peanuts.
38
Because you never saw a kid go through the attack, and not be able to breath. and to be rushed to the emergency room when a kid who ate peanut butter touched him.
7
The fact that you "never saw a single kid have a problem with peanut allergy" means nothing. You may have walked by a dozen in the school hall every day and never knew it, and even if you didn't, how do you know there weren't an army of them elsewhere?
5
I'm just curious, how many times would you be willing to pay the $500 or more ER deductible that most insurance has? Ambulance costs? Would you just eat those costs every time your kid made an emergency trip to the hospital for life-saving treatment?
What about that final time, when your kid didn't make it? Do you think you might sue then? Do you know anyone who has lost a child? Did they just take it in stride, realizing it might have inconvenienced someone to save their child's life? That is just not how humanity works.
Also, think about how disruptive it would be to everyone's school day if a kid in your child's class almost dies. Other kids are not going to stay calm and focus on learning when a classmate swells up, turns blue, and stops breathing.
If we've learned some new info that can reduce the frequency or severity of peanut allergies, that's great. But denial and a blatant lack of empathy were never the answer.
What about that final time, when your kid didn't make it? Do you think you might sue then? Do you know anyone who has lost a child? Did they just take it in stride, realizing it might have inconvenienced someone to save their child's life? That is just not how humanity works.
Also, think about how disruptive it would be to everyone's school day if a kid in your child's class almost dies. Other kids are not going to stay calm and focus on learning when a classmate swells up, turns blue, and stops breathing.
If we've learned some new info that can reduce the frequency or severity of peanut allergies, that's great. But denial and a blatant lack of empathy were never the answer.
6
"Things might have been different if only we had known then what we know now."
Well, of course. Get used to it; that is the way of life. Hopefully cancer will someday be cured. And when it is, all those who have lost loved ones to cancer will lament -- understandably -- that the cure was discovered sooner. We can't go backward; we can only go forward. It is a shame those parents, acting with good intentions, kept their children away from peanuts when it might have been the wrong thing to do. We know better now. Move forward.
Well, of course. Get used to it; that is the way of life. Hopefully cancer will someday be cured. And when it is, all those who have lost loved ones to cancer will lament -- understandably -- that the cure was discovered sooner. We can't go backward; we can only go forward. It is a shame those parents, acting with good intentions, kept their children away from peanuts when it might have been the wrong thing to do. We know better now. Move forward.
20
It's not that big of an about face if you follow the subject, its just taken about 7 years to trickle from the scientific community of MDs to the pediatricians and the updated allergy prevention guidelines.
13
In the very old dark ages, before baby food was really really OUT there, I remember how children were introduced to food. After breast or formula, and at the site of the first tooth (because that's when digestive enzymes start to mature and ready the child for additional nutrients) the first "food" was soft cooked egg yolk, fed to baby sitting up with a spoon. Next, was the gradual introduction of farina, diluted with lots of milk. None of this nonsense of cereal in the bottle. Then very ripe bananas.... mashed potatoes, both regular and sweet... etc. AND there were so few food allergies, way back, when mastodons walked the earth ...
Perhaps we need to return infants to real food and get their mothers off social media so they have time to take care of their offspring.
Perhaps we need to return infants to real food and get their mothers off social media so they have time to take care of their offspring.
38
Eva we should have coffee. There is too much choice for todays young mom. And some of them have food issues. They won't feed cereals because they wont eat cereals themselves. "Glutens," oh no, for young women never tested positive for celiac, and yet still not even oatmeal for themselves or baby. They force the children to try organic highly indigestible foods. A girl I know sent me her little one fed only lentils, and they were never digested, baby had diaper rash, certainly some cultures eat lentils, but when a baby can digest them. A lot of the moms think the babies should have the same wierd preference they have at 40 years old.
2
"Perhaps we need to return infants to real food and get their mothers off social media so they have time to take care of their offspring."
Wow, that was pretty judgemental. What about the fathers, or do you really believe it's only up to the mother to care for their offspring? Also, I sincerely doubt that any child has developed a food allergy because a parent has a social media account. Call me a skeptic, but I believe you might be hard-pressed to find a scientific link between the two.
Wow, that was pretty judgemental. What about the fathers, or do you really believe it's only up to the mother to care for their offspring? Also, I sincerely doubt that any child has developed a food allergy because a parent has a social media account. Call me a skeptic, but I believe you might be hard-pressed to find a scientific link between the two.
5
It's clear what the new guidance is based on -- compelling evidence from careful study.
So one has to wonder what the previous, contrary guidance was based on. An untested theory? Was it wise to issue guidance when, it seems, nobody really knew?
So one has to wonder what the previous, contrary guidance was based on. An untested theory? Was it wise to issue guidance when, it seems, nobody really knew?
17
Guidance must be given using the best information available at the time. When complete information is not available mistakes will be made. Life here in the Dark Ages is hard and uncertain.
This is correct. Guidelines are often drafted from a consensus of opinion, based on current knowledge (or lack thereof). Often, it is no better than speculation based on clinical observations and "common sense", plus a dollop of self-interest. The national dietary guidelines from the 1970s and 1980s with carbohydrates at the bottom of the "food pyramid" was a disgrace.
The most current guidelines regarding infant feeding and allergy is however solid as it is based on prospective controlled clinical trials. The evidence is probably as good as it gets.
The most current guidelines regarding infant feeding and allergy is however solid as it is based on prospective controlled clinical trials. The evidence is probably as good as it gets.
1
It happens all the time. The recommendation to eat margarine was based on no science at all. It just seemed to make sense.
My mom ate lots of nuts and peanuts when she was pregnant; that is what she told me. I played in the dirt all the as a kid, and had pets. I have photos of me as an infant where I am surrounded by peanuts and tree-nuts. I developed severe allergies to peanuts and tree-nuts by the age of 3. I am still severely allergic to nuts to this day as a middle age adult. I am only alive today because I was saved in the emergency room many, many times. I often believe the reason why there are more peanut allergies today is because there are more of us passing on our genes. It is likely most of us folks with severe allergies would have died early in life if we were born 50-100 years earlier.
53
I also think there are other environmental factors at play too. The combination of a greater gene pool, and an environmental component (such of fumes from the exhaust of cars), together increase the risk. We see genes+environment can also lead to more things like like cancer and asthma. For instance, asthma is more likely if you live near a highway. Thus, in advanced nations with more car exhaust fumes in the city (away from the farm), and a genetic predisposition for peanut allergies, it can create a greater likelihood of peanut allergies. I may be an unusual case. I grew up with chickens, dogs, and lots of nuts around me as an infant, and I played in the dirt, and I grew up on a very busy street (lots of cars). Both my brother and I have severe anaphylactic reactions to peanuts/tree-nuts.
6
I think there must be an environmental cause(s) acting on genetic predisposition. If it was purely genetic and previously people just died then it would be in the death records.
1
What a relief! The old peanut rule caused my son to have an actual fear of peanuts. He grew up with no Peanut logos everywhere and now at 11 years old, he has no interest in even trying a peanut and finds the idea of peanut butter repulsive.
7
Fear/terror responses kick off physiological responses that can include breathlessness, racing heart, swelling. The overwrought response to peanut allergies complicates sufferer's ability to discern whether they are reacting to the peanuts alone or also to the pervasive terror of peanuts. Parents inadvertently model a degree of terror about peanuts that causes some children to experience severe distress if peanuts are in the same (lunch)room with them, even if they are not in any danger of consuming them. The mind/body interaction is powerful, and can negatively contribute to the peanut problem.
My Dad is 94 yrs old and has been a lover of peanuts in the shell his entire life..can't get enough. It has long been a funny family story that every child, grandchild, great grandchild and great great grandchild has been feed peanuts that were chewed up by Dad for them, all starting at 3-4 months of age. I had to stop and count but it's about 72 babies. We do not have a single member of the family with a peanut allergy. Anecdotal, yes, but as the years went by, and the stories of peanut allergies were everywhere it seemed, we always attributed our having none to Dad's chewing them up and feeding the babies.
11
I agree. I ate peanut butter, shellfish, and strawberries my entire pregnancy and feed them to our son in small doses as an infant, and he never developed an allergy.
1
Yay! And yet, also, Ew. :_>
5
Very interesting! I actually chewed up food (inc. nuts) for my kids and am happy to report no nut allergies.
1
Ignorance is not bliss.
Facts are facts and cannot be changed to make some parents feel more or less guilty for reasons only they know.
Life is full of risks and being ignorant and disparaging of science only increases the risks.
Facts are facts and cannot be changed to make some parents feel more or less guilty for reasons only they know.
Life is full of risks and being ignorant and disparaging of science only increases the risks.
19
Here in Israel, children are given Bamba as babies, a treat which contains nuts. There are many less children here with peanut allergies
9
Vaccines contain contain proteins among a host of other things. If you give hepatitis vaccine at birth and the infant's immune system is years from being fully developed...what happens? Ask any pediatrician. If they don't know the answer to this (the baby's body is going to react in the only way it knows how...by identifying the alien proteins causing inflammation)
Then in the future, for the rest of life, the body will react in the same way when its immune system sees similar proteins (like from peanut oil in vaccines). Glad Trump is having Robert Kennedy Jr. looking into this.
Then in the future, for the rest of life, the body will react in the same way when its immune system sees similar proteins (like from peanut oil in vaccines). Glad Trump is having Robert Kennedy Jr. looking into this.
4
There is no peanut oil in vaccines. It was once tested as an adjuvant (enhancer), back in the 1960s, but was never approved for use.
Vaccines save millions of lives and billions of dollars. They also reduce pain and suffering by immense (and measurable) levels.
Vaccines save millions of lives and billions of dollars. They also reduce pain and suffering by immense (and measurable) levels.
6
This is not how the infant immune system works. And peanut oil is not used in vaccines. Check your sources.
2
Janice, how many newborns are going to get Hepatitis? How are they going to get it, sexual activity? These vaccines are given as a blanket without thought. No risk based vaccination. Hep at birth, there is little to no logic for this to be a requirement and is not a requirement in the rest of the world.
I would bet there are very few cases of peanut butter allergy that is life-threatening, this has become an epidemic in this country with parents making huge issues of things that are relatively small or insignificant.
I'm unsure if it's the parents that just need attention or it's simple over protection, either way it's both annoying and distracting taking away valuable attention from real issues.
If you want to ask why this country is in the decline, all you have to do is look around you. American society is afraid of their own shadow. Too much sugar, too many carbs, too much melatonin, gluten in any form etc etc etc.
There are people that suffer from all of the above, but from what you read and see you would think it's half the US population, it's impossible that these maladies have come about in the last generation or two in such significant numbers.
Impossible.
I'm unsure if it's the parents that just need attention or it's simple over protection, either way it's both annoying and distracting taking away valuable attention from real issues.
If you want to ask why this country is in the decline, all you have to do is look around you. American society is afraid of their own shadow. Too much sugar, too many carbs, too much melatonin, gluten in any form etc etc etc.
There are people that suffer from all of the above, but from what you read and see you would think it's half the US population, it's impossible that these maladies have come about in the last generation or two in such significant numbers.
Impossible.
15
I would offer an alternative reason for why this country is in decline....
3
You're just wrong. Peanut allergies are, in fact, unusual in just how dangerous they are. Don't confuse people with real, and deadly, allergies with people who suddenly decide they have to eat a gluten free diet just because they once heard of celiac disease.
6
I'd like to agree with you, but do you really think it's impossible given two successive Generations who have grown up eating fake food engineered by Monsanto etcetera?
Ms. Doggart's complaint about children being used as guinea pigs is naive. We will ALL be used as guinea pigs at some point whether as a subject in a research experiment testing a drug designed to cure a condition that makes us so desperate we're willing to accept the risk, or after we're dead as data points in a database.
5
The other option is to use animals for research but PETA is not going to like that.
1
Sorry. Most kids who suffer from peanut allergies are rich and white, which gives their parents the power to impose nut bans in schools, thus denying an excellent inexpensive protein source to poor kids. This is just another example of how the rich oppress the poor.
There are millions of starving children in the world but society is constantly asked to privilege rich people's maladies (see also "lactose intolerance", "misophonia", "environmental allergies" etc) which always involves dictating to poor people what they can or can't eat or what sounds they make or what they wear because it ruffles rich people's feathers. We're asked to have empathy for the relatively small group of people who suffer these conditions even while they have no sympathy at all for the millions of people they're affecting with these policies - even though they're the people who can most easily afford to isolate their children instead of demanding that the world accommodate them. (Though of course their precious isolation is probably the reason for their allergies in the first place.)
Oh and remember that this is the same demographic that refuses to vaccinate their kids, thus bringing measles and whooping cough back to poor people too, who are more likely to die from these diseases.
Forgive me for thinking that poor refugees whose lives would be saved by a peanut butter sandwich are more worthy of our consideration than these children of privilege with a fictional disease.
There are millions of starving children in the world but society is constantly asked to privilege rich people's maladies (see also "lactose intolerance", "misophonia", "environmental allergies" etc) which always involves dictating to poor people what they can or can't eat or what sounds they make or what they wear because it ruffles rich people's feathers. We're asked to have empathy for the relatively small group of people who suffer these conditions even while they have no sympathy at all for the millions of people they're affecting with these policies - even though they're the people who can most easily afford to isolate their children instead of demanding that the world accommodate them. (Though of course their precious isolation is probably the reason for their allergies in the first place.)
Oh and remember that this is the same demographic that refuses to vaccinate their kids, thus bringing measles and whooping cough back to poor people too, who are more likely to die from these diseases.
Forgive me for thinking that poor refugees whose lives would be saved by a peanut butter sandwich are more worthy of our consideration than these children of privilege with a fictional disease.
25
Just for your information people of African descent are even more likely to suffer from lactose intolerance than wealthy Anglos. It's not a rich white fantasy.
Allergies have nothing to do with privilege. I was born poor and I nearly didn't make it out of early childhood due to allergies. One of the kids I played with had to go to a free clinic every week and wait in line to get desensitizing shots so she wouldn't die of an asthma attack. She was even less well off than we were.
I know one person who has a peanut allergy - a legume allergy specifically. (Peanuts are actually legumes not nuts. Again FYI.) I've seen him near death when someone accidently gave him a piece of "allergy safe" cake made with lentil flour. (Lentils are legumes.)
Your opinions on this matter - well everybody has one - an opinion I mean.
Allergies have nothing to do with privilege. I was born poor and I nearly didn't make it out of early childhood due to allergies. One of the kids I played with had to go to a free clinic every week and wait in line to get desensitizing shots so she wouldn't die of an asthma attack. She was even less well off than we were.
I know one person who has a peanut allergy - a legume allergy specifically. (Peanuts are actually legumes not nuts. Again FYI.) I've seen him near death when someone accidently gave him a piece of "allergy safe" cake made with lentil flour. (Lentils are legumes.)
Your opinions on this matter - well everybody has one - an opinion I mean.
19
"Fictional" disease?
That's a very broad brush you've painted us with there James. I'm surprised you forgot to use the word "elites." Either way, the ridiculous generalities you use to characterize people like me (I have a thirteen year old boy with a severe -- nonfictional -- peanut allergy) spreads your argument so thin that you missed everyone you've targeted with your irrational vilification. This is a fictitious world you've created for yourself.
That's a very broad brush you've painted us with there James. I'm surprised you forgot to use the word "elites." Either way, the ridiculous generalities you use to characterize people like me (I have a thirteen year old boy with a severe -- nonfictional -- peanut allergy) spreads your argument so thin that you missed everyone you've targeted with your irrational vilification. This is a fictitious world you've created for yourself.
13
I agree completely, though I believe peanut allergies ARE real -- it is just exaggerated today, to make helicopter parents feel more important.
A child with a TRUE peanut allergy and their parents, should NOT expect society to give them peanut-free environments -- THEY have the problem, THEY should quarantine the child until he/she is old enough to manage their allergies.
It should not fall to SOCIETY to make a peanut-free world for those rich, white "special snowflakes".
It is also true that peanuts are a very valuable crop for the poor, worldwide, especially the LIFESAVING FOOD SUPPLEMENT "Plumpy-nut" which has saved the lives of millions of starving children.
A child with a TRUE peanut allergy and their parents, should NOT expect society to give them peanut-free environments -- THEY have the problem, THEY should quarantine the child until he/she is old enough to manage their allergies.
It should not fall to SOCIETY to make a peanut-free world for those rich, white "special snowflakes".
It is also true that peanuts are a very valuable crop for the poor, worldwide, especially the LIFESAVING FOOD SUPPLEMENT "Plumpy-nut" which has saved the lives of millions of starving children.
2
This study (actually an evolution of studies about peanut exposure in infancy) is an example why we need scientific studies. The old recommendations were based on common sense and expert opinion. They seemed to make sense. But science- first an observational study of two genetically similar populations with different child rearing habits, then a real trial showed the real answer was different from what seemed to make sense. This is exactly why we need scientific studies the modern world
29
Most other countries have lower instances of food allergies than the United States. This is because of different attitudes as to how we approach food. Many people in this country may have minor allergies that they assume to be severe. They want peanut free class rooms, baseball stadiums and movie theaters.
While there is no doubt that some people have life threatening allergies, not every allergy is life threatening. Medical experts are right to focus on desensitization as the best available prevention strategy.
No one is saying to give a two-month old a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
While there is no doubt that some people have life threatening allergies, not every allergy is life threatening. Medical experts are right to focus on desensitization as the best available prevention strategy.
No one is saying to give a two-month old a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
12
I think a lot of the backlash towards some of the so-called allergy maniacs is deserved. There is a sign outside all our classrooms at school, showing what cannot be brought in. All nuts are obviously banned from all classrooms. But other signs have foods listed such as avocado, grapefruit, peaches, dairy, wheat, etc. I don't know all the stats, but I have to assume nobody ever died because they smelled a grapefruit from across the room. Or because someone 10 feet away was eating guacamole. Allergies are real, but I think life threatening allergies are very, very rare. The problem is that every parent has an epi pen now and thinks an allergy is the same thing as a life-threatening allergy. Airborne food allergens are rare, but you would never know that while reading the signs in the school.
26
My niece has a severe peanut allergy as tested by an allergist--the severity is based on scientific fact that if she even licks a peanut her throat would close up within minutes. Her parents tested it while at an emergency room with the allergist onsite. She used to cough, wheeze, get an itchy throat and develop hives every time she boarded a plane that served peanuts just because of the peanut dust flying through the cabin and the residual left on the seats--this is after doing a wipe down of the seat, arm rests and table.
3
Karen, if they are eating the food in the classroom and they are kids the risk is not only airborne, it is dropped on the floor left on the hands of the consumer that ate it, wiped on desks, clothes, taps, toys, books. Two children in every class now have a life threatening allergy. Take it to the lunchroom that can be properly cleaned each day and where allergic kids can be monitored and segregated.
My grandparents lived in the world. They farmed, got dirty, lived life.
Its pretty clear that 21st century parents we need to be aware that putting our children in a bubble has consequences. Those things that I take for granted having been exposed to them as children suddenly turn into poisons.
I tried to avoid this, but who knows. My kids got muddy, ate everything, enjoyed life as children. So far so good, no asthma, no allergies, we'll see.
Who knows what the future holds, but its pretty clear the bubble approach isn't the correct choice.
No choice is perfect, but free range children may be the way. :-)
Its pretty clear that 21st century parents we need to be aware that putting our children in a bubble has consequences. Those things that I take for granted having been exposed to them as children suddenly turn into poisons.
I tried to avoid this, but who knows. My kids got muddy, ate everything, enjoyed life as children. So far so good, no asthma, no allergies, we'll see.
Who knows what the future holds, but its pretty clear the bubble approach isn't the correct choice.
No choice is perfect, but free range children may be the way. :-)
33
Why is it that we never trust things supported by evidence?
47
sometimes we find out possiblly that the peanut industry was behind the study or allegedly the soda industry paid to have reports supported by evidence that soda is really not that bad for you or the dairy industry was behind the food pyramid.
1
Because too often we put trust in things on the basis of faith when we shouldn't. I will entrust my intangibles (like my soul) to faith, and the concrete (like my body) to science.
How about a follow up article on how the peanut allergy epidemic started in the early 90's.
17
CMP: How about a follow up article on how the peanut allergy epidemic started in the early 90's.
That's about 6 years after the US government changed the rules on vaccines and we started putting 80 shots in kids instead of 15. I'm no vaccine skeptic. I have no complaints about the 15 shots I got as a kid to protect me from disabling illness, but mandating the flu shot each year (at what efficacy) and Hep B, to protect you from an STD at birth. Keeps the dollars flowing to the medical industry and now the liability is covered by the US government.
That's about 6 years after the US government changed the rules on vaccines and we started putting 80 shots in kids instead of 15. I'm no vaccine skeptic. I have no complaints about the 15 shots I got as a kid to protect me from disabling illness, but mandating the flu shot each year (at what efficacy) and Hep B, to protect you from an STD at birth. Keeps the dollars flowing to the medical industry and now the liability is covered by the US government.
Shouldn't the advice depend on genetics? If allergies don't run in your family, then follow the new give-em-nuts advice, but if you or your spouse or relatives have gone into anaphylactic shock over a nut, then don't give them to your baby.
6
The British study was done on children who were specifically "at risk" of developing peanut allergies (although I'm not sure how they defined that), and early introduction of peanuts was noted to be beneficial for the vast majority of them.
I would imagine that parents who are particularly concerned could have peanuts introduced in a doctor's office (under supervision) the first time around.
I would imagine that parents who are particularly concerned could have peanuts introduced in a doctor's office (under supervision) the first time around.
10
Yours is the voice of reason.
1
At least one group of test subjects were siblings of children with a peanut allergy. My own children were not eligible as their brother (a patient of Dr Lack's clinic) is allergic to both tree nuts (all types) and peanuts.
Whilst we would have gladly participated, there was also always the chance we would be put into control group and not have benefited from the early exposure.
Whilst we would have gladly participated, there was also always the chance we would be put into control group and not have benefited from the early exposure.
1
When I was growing up, nobody had all these allergies, and few of my friends had asthma. Might it be by keeping our children uber-safe that we harm them in the long-run. Didn't one recent study find the Amish had few cases of asthma, or something similar to that? Don't forget the smallpox vaccine was developed when it was noticed that milk maids didn't get smallpox. But as another comment notes, it's nearly impossible to convince people, even with hard science, to change their minds.
21
Given the kowtowing, horse trading and politics involved in getting science funding, we have a lot of smaller studies and not so many larger studies. Public trust in research would likely be restored if we had larger studies with clearer results.
1
Just because you are the kid's parent doesn't mean you have any clue about what is best for them and almost guarantees that, even if you believe you understand the issue, you don't have the objectivity to make decisions about their medical care. In fact, ethics rules for physicians specifically discourage caring for family members. The concern is that emotion will cloud judgement and affect decision making, leading to worse outcomes. Thus, physicians refer their family to other physicians and then try not to interfere. Take that as a cue.
19
No mention of organic/ non-pesticide ridden peanuts, or mold? And always keep your nut butters refrigerated!
2
You only need to refrigerate all-natural peanut butter (the only ingredient is peanuts). For families that use Skippy or Jif, those don't need to be refrigerated.
7
Nuts stay fresher when refrigerated. Rancid peanuts have aflatoxin, a carcinogen.
"A large clinical trial studied hundreds of British children at risk for peanut allergies"
But MY trial involving one story I read on the web once contradicts your science, Mr. Fancy White Coat with a degree and all that!
But MY trial involving one story I read on the web once contradicts your science, Mr. Fancy White Coat with a degree and all that!
12
In my neighborhood, our mothers told us to go outside and eat some dirt, and, perhaps as a result, we did not suffer from the allergies and disorders that plague children today.
8
Our personal and anecdotal experience influences our decisions more strongly than large scale data, but the latter is what should be used to make health recommendations. Unfortunately, many physicians, being human beings, make the same errors as lay people, especially when the data is soft. Retrospective data has suggested for decades that food allergies are less common when new foods are introduced earlier, which is consistent that any=tiigen sensitization is blunted in fetal life and becomes stronger quickly as the infant matures. This is what was taught in medical schools more than forty years ago. Yet fear of allergy caused many Pediatricians and even the AAP to recommend giving only breast until six months, and delaying the most allergenic foods until 12 months or more. Some Allergists still urge parents to avoids eggs and nuts for their babies until three years or more. It seems that we have exacerbated the allergy problem by overprotecting infants from the challenges that Nature would ordinarily present and which infants are ready to meet.
13
It is likely to take quite a lot of time to make early-peanut-exposure a common practice. The peanut allergy families that I know are tenacious believers in blocking exposure, to such an extent that one allergy-suffering child in a family reunion of eighty generates a priori warnings and threats should anyone bring a single peanut to the reunion site. Further, the family of the allergic child has convinced cousins and others to, at all costs, avoid exposing their own infants and toddlers to anything peanut.
9
Nobody is arguing that it's safe to give peanuts to a kid who has a peanut allergy. And depending on the severity of the allergy and the age of the child, I think it is reasonable to ask that nobody bring food that is potentially life-threatening to a family gathering (and certainly make sure that it is well labeled and the relevant individuals are well informed!). However, you are correct that other family members don't necessarily want to avoid exposing their infants to peanuts, although the new guidelines do say that if there is a family history of allergies it may be best to do that first exposure in a doctor's office.
7
@Tim: I feel sorry for the peanut-allergic children in your family, but I sure wouldn't be inviting those people to a family reunion. Even if everyone in the family agrees NOT to bring a single peanut to the reunion site, how can anyone be sure that previous people who used that site didn't bring peanuts (or even entire jars of peanut butter)?
I'm sorry the family of the allergic child is having such sway over the cousins and future generations - those parents are in all likelihood actually INCREASING the chance that more members of the family will develop peanut allergies.
I'm sorry the family of the allergic child is having such sway over the cousins and future generations - those parents are in all likelihood actually INCREASING the chance that more members of the family will develop peanut allergies.
1
@ Tim, if that didn't happen then the parents of the peanut allergic child would not be enjoying the reunion. They would need to pay attention to their kid at the pot luck, and where and who they are playing with and what snacks those kids are eating and if I were in their shoes, I would not enjoy that reunion. I'd be dealing with potential situations, not reuniting with family. Whats enjoyable about that.
Walk a mile in their shoes.
Walk a mile in their shoes.
I am not a medical doctor (just the mother of a two year old with no allergies), but perhaps allergy screenings should be a routine part of pediatric checkups at four to six months of age. If an infant tests positive for a peanut allergy, obviously avoid peanuts, but if they don't, start feeding them peanut products to help develop a tolerance. That seems a policy that would be both cost-effective and sufficiently cautious.
9
@Danielle: I come from a family with many allergies, and the way we deal with a lot of those allergies is to "plow through" - by which I mean: we just keep eating what we're allergic to, and we find that over time we are LESS allergic. I used to break out in hives every time I ate an egg. I made a point of eating an egg a day, 5 days a week for about 10 months; I no longer break out in hives from eating eggs.
My parents could not afford to have us allergy-tested; we just continued eating and living, and all of us have survived well into middle age and beyond.
Lethal peanut allergy was NOT something that I even heard about until I was well into middle age - not one of the children in my grammar school (800 students) had an issue with peanuts (heck, most of us were eating PBJ sandwiches for lunch each day).
So I would say parents should expose their children to peanuts at a young age. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the child will not be likely to develop an allergy.
You have to ask why severe peanut allergies arose so quickly out of almost nowhere, if not for parents restricting exposure in recent years. There's no evidence that people have been dropping dead in vast numbers from peanut allergies for hundreds of years, b/c if that were true, most would have died young (long before they were old enough to have children) & the trait would not have persisted in humans to the degree we have seen it in recent years.
My parents could not afford to have us allergy-tested; we just continued eating and living, and all of us have survived well into middle age and beyond.
Lethal peanut allergy was NOT something that I even heard about until I was well into middle age - not one of the children in my grammar school (800 students) had an issue with peanuts (heck, most of us were eating PBJ sandwiches for lunch each day).
So I would say parents should expose their children to peanuts at a young age. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the child will not be likely to develop an allergy.
You have to ask why severe peanut allergies arose so quickly out of almost nowhere, if not for parents restricting exposure in recent years. There's no evidence that people have been dropping dead in vast numbers from peanut allergies for hundreds of years, b/c if that were true, most would have died young (long before they were old enough to have children) & the trait would not have persisted in humans to the degree we have seen it in recent years.
2
The idea of allergy screening is an interesting one. Can't speak to the science of doing such testing on infants (with developing immune systems) but results could offer guidance. Keep in mind that such tests are not 100% accurate.
Introducing peanut products during infancy may work for some but it definitely didn't work for us.
Introducing peanut products during infancy may work for some but it definitely didn't work for us.
@Danielle, the problem with screening is it is inaccurate. The skin is the first to remember, last to forget so may break out in hives for something you can actually eat. L - NYC below shows that with eggs.
Blood testing is also a bit over the place, you could pull vials of blood from the left and right arms and get two different IGe results. Even then, unless the IGe is off the charts >100 high you don't really have an idea of a true allergen or an intolerance and need to then eat that food to see what happens.
That policy seems cost effective but in reality isn't
Blood testing is also a bit over the place, you could pull vials of blood from the left and right arms and get two different IGe results. Even then, unless the IGe is off the charts >100 high you don't really have an idea of a true allergen or an intolerance and need to then eat that food to see what happens.
That policy seems cost effective but in reality isn't
1
There are many things that 'we' do too well. Perfectly sanitized houses, children not allowed to get dirty,,,, Farm kids who roll on dirt and cow poop (cow chips fly just like a Frisbee, I've thrown more than a few ) almost never get asthma. The 'clean home' syndrome does not allow for developing a robust immune system.
Withholding peanuts has proven to cause peanut allergies. Again, too perfect, and the child develops no natural tolerance or immunity.
Sugar,,, evil sugar. And yet,,, sugar is the only thing that our bodies use for energy. There is not evidence based research to support this denigration of sugar... But there is research that indicates that artificial sweeteners are a problem,,, for the proper metabolizing of sugar.
Pop science,, we need to be careful to pay attention to evidence based research and not popular unsupported conclusions.
Withholding peanuts has proven to cause peanut allergies. Again, too perfect, and the child develops no natural tolerance or immunity.
Sugar,,, evil sugar. And yet,,, sugar is the only thing that our bodies use for energy. There is not evidence based research to support this denigration of sugar... But there is research that indicates that artificial sweeteners are a problem,,, for the proper metabolizing of sugar.
Pop science,, we need to be careful to pay attention to evidence based research and not popular unsupported conclusions.
12
Sugar is necessary to sustain our lives. But I don't see scientists demonizing sugar: I see them warning about consuming too much sugar, and therein lies a very big difference. There is plenty of evidence about the effect of too much sugar.
2
I am disheartened (but not really surprised) about the many top-rated snarky comments about children with food allergies and their parents. As a parent of two children with multiple food allergies, please believe me that it is not something we wanted. Food allergies materially affect a child's ability to engage in many social activities that involve food -- e.g., birthday parties, sleepovers, camping trips. The list goes on. And when we have to deal with other adults who don't take the allergies serious, or just flat out don't believe that food allergies are real, it makes it even more difficult.
28
Where have these people been? The medical community has been revamping recommendations on health for every of the 61 years I have been alive. All these studies are just that studies. Did it make any sense that kids were getting more allergies than their parents had because they were exposed to peanuts at an early age. That made absolutely no sense and way more studies needed to be done before folks changed their diets. Most of the studies we hear about are uncorroborated by any follow up studies to verify the facts of the outcomes. It happens again and again and people willy nilly jump at the newest studies like they are well worn lore. Peanuts were never the villain they were made out to be because somethings are just common sense. Like sugar being the villain it has always been hiding under the natural label. Somethings are just common sense and we shouldn't jump at every new study as if it is well worn fact. All results needed be replicated by at least three studies before being considered possibly correct. At least when it comes to human nutrition studies because this issue is so complicated that it takes decades to determine actual effects.
5
I'd say that I don't know.
For sure, nobody's got allergies in my family - except to penicillin.
On one hand I can understand how not being in contact with a substance might get you too sensitive, just as immunization works with microbes - you develop antibodies.
But on the other hand, allergies to bees stings are known to grow worse with each sting - you develop more and more antibodies - so it's not a case of getting used to it; it's more a case of sparing your tolerance capital.
I'd say we each may rather have DNA specifics with regards immunity and allergy
For sure, nobody's got allergies in my family - except to penicillin.
On one hand I can understand how not being in contact with a substance might get you too sensitive, just as immunization works with microbes - you develop antibodies.
But on the other hand, allergies to bees stings are known to grow worse with each sting - you develop more and more antibodies - so it's not a case of getting used to it; it's more a case of sparing your tolerance capital.
I'd say we each may rather have DNA specifics with regards immunity and allergy
Ummm, I don't think antibodies are at work in this instance.
With nut allergies, pin-prick tests can give indication of how sensitive allergy is at that moment but that is not conclusive of how severe or minor a reaction would be the next time - like bee sting reactions.
So there is no being a little allergic to peanuts or not.
That is why we carry antihistamines and epipens.
So there is no being a little allergic to peanuts or not.
That is why we carry antihistamines and epipens.
2
It's so simple: we are more apt to be allergic to things that we're never exposed to as children. Children who grow up on farms are rarely allergic to pollen, hay, etc. Children should be exposed to our environment (dirt, peanuts, and all), and and then monitored for allergic reactions in case there's a problem. And for Pete's sake - breast feed. My aunt had 5 kids. She breast fed the first 4 - none had allergies. The fifth was bottle fed, and he's allergic to pretty much *everything*. Apparently, breast feeding passes on bacteria to babies that help prepare their immune systems to deal with our environment (aka - not having allergies). Take your kids away from their devices and throw them in a mud puddle with a pb&j sandwich....they'll thank you for it later.
30
Children are not exposed to bacteria that they need to be exposed to. Anti-bacterial everything does help you develop an immune system. It hinders it. To fight off the bacteria carried in viruses, we have to need to have an immune system that has been used. Fighting off and containing colds are also are a necessary aspect of the immune system. So is the flu. If your system doesn't know how to land a punch, it can't fight.
3
N Richards, almost there...
Apparently, breast feeding passes on nutrients that feed the babies stomach bacteria / biome to help it grow and prepare their immune systems to deal with our environment.
Apparently, breast feeding passes on nutrients that feed the babies stomach bacteria / biome to help it grow and prepare their immune systems to deal with our environment.
1
Recent studies comparing breast-fed and bottle-fed siblings didn't find any statistically significant differences in allergy rates, actually. (Although, interestingly, bottle-fed children were found to have slightly lower rates of asthma).
7
I breast fed my kids, and I LOVE peanut butter and ate it a lot. I wonder if that helped them avoid allergies?
18
Research says, or at least implies, yes, to both. There are so many tiny and many unknown, components of a mothers milk that protect and help to grow kids. Ya did good, mom.
8
I also breast fed and ate a lot of peanut butter/nuts while pregnant and nursing. My daughter developed an allergy to all nuts as a toddler. Individual experiences do not reflect the whole. Also I understand the logic behind the changed recommendation and would try it if I had a chance to do over. However, you have to understand that this is a complete turn around and parents are understandably hesitant. Parents don't want allergic kids (there's no joy in carrying an Epipen).
1
I did the same thing and my child has severe allergies. The truth is no one knows what causes allergies. If they did we could stop it. Your child not having allergies, doesn't mean you prevented them. Shaming other people helps no one.
11
Hard to convince large segments of the American public of scientific data and facts when their minds are already made up. Witness our recent election.
77
In other words, "you can't fix stupid".
16
And the importance of vaccination.
12
And Einstein reversed the foundations of Newtonian Mechanics. So what?
It's what science does. The rational person doesn't simply throw up one's hands in the face of new finding and base conclusions on anecdote, but acts on the currently best available data.
It's what science does. The rational person doesn't simply throw up one's hands in the face of new finding and base conclusions on anecdote, but acts on the currently best available data.
10
Anti-nutters- Quick, call RFK jr.! He'll get you a meeting with with the Whining Victim-Elect, and a commission on nuts.
8
Yes, let's take advice from social media filled with anecdotes instead of experts who have run legitimate studies. Makes perfect sense - let's all deny the evidence we don't like. It's a common theme in the US across the political spectrum.
11
My kids grew up on a Mediterranean diet, with lots of nuts and peanuts, and they are not allergic. Nor did I know anybody who was when I lived in Israel and Turkey. I believe peanut allergy is largely cultural, though there may be a genetic component to it - as there is to anything. All human functioning, allergies and diseases included, is an interaction between genes and cultural environment. This said, I find the American style of parenting fussy, irritating and inconsiderate. An acquaintance who came to dinner with her small daughter reeled through a list of things the girl "could not eat" and started quizzing me on the components of the dishes. I told her I had no idea of the chemical composition of my cooking and suggested we give the girl a glass of water and let her read a book. If your child can't eat peanuts, tough luck. But this doesn't mean everybody should bend over backward to accommodate them.
12
Peggy Cottle's hyperbolic statements only add to the hysteria.
1
I have never met anybody from outside the United States who has a peanut allergy. I have also never met a foreign parent who obsesses over whether to feed their infant peanuts.
I wonder if one is connected to the other?
I wonder if one is connected to the other?
6
Did that group include anyone in Europe or Great Britain.
Plenty of peanut and tree nut allergies here, including my son born in London. And antenatal and baby feeding guidelines have not included restrictions on nuts unlike in the US.
Thankfully a peanut or tree nut allergy is not generally considered a lifestyle choice or parental overreaction as it seems to be the states.
Schools, restaurants, food manufacturers make it easier on children with nut allergies than it seems their American counterparts. Perhaps that is because the risk of litigation is nowhere near the factor it is in the US. Perhaps it's cultural. Regardless, based on readers responses, it seems to be more supportive of these families and the difficult position they are in.
Plenty of peanut and tree nut allergies here, including my son born in London. And antenatal and baby feeding guidelines have not included restrictions on nuts unlike in the US.
Thankfully a peanut or tree nut allergy is not generally considered a lifestyle choice or parental overreaction as it seems to be the states.
Schools, restaurants, food manufacturers make it easier on children with nut allergies than it seems their American counterparts. Perhaps that is because the risk of litigation is nowhere near the factor it is in the US. Perhaps it's cultural. Regardless, based on readers responses, it seems to be more supportive of these families and the difficult position they are in.
2
I know lots of people who grew up in various parts of Asia (China, India, Thailand, Malaysia) and Africa (Gabon and Kenya) who had either siblings or cousins die at very early ages (6 months - 4 years) of very sudden medical emergencies that were not infections (no fever) or accidents. Did the child die of an allergy - maybe? Unless you are very rich, there are not a lot of autopsies in the developing world.
Two of these women have children - first generation Americans of lower socioeconomic status) have children with nut allergies.
Two of these women have children - first generation Americans of lower socioeconomic status) have children with nut allergies.
2
I live in Australia and there are lots of peanut allergies here. It is not just an American phenomenon.
3
When the world is falling apart, collapsing, shaken to its foundations, why should anybody even suspect that the medical profession is undergoing, also, some traumatic experience? But, this is precisely what is taking place. Doctors have always been loved and even worshipped. Yet, there has always been a kind of “idolatry” on the part of both patient and medical practitioner. Western Medicine is suffering some terrible malaise, related, in part, to the phenomenon of “computerized medicine”. Why are so many seeking healing through what is commonly called “alternative medicine”? Physicians will always stubbornly cling to their sense of their being beyond/ above criticism (it goes with the job!). As the idols, each in turn, fall, tumbled ruthlessly to the ground, Western medicine cannot survive unscathed. The Western World has certainly entered into a new world, A Twilight of the Idols, indeed!
2
Such conversations should be had in private with a doctor knowledgeable on the matter.
Public discussion of fears and statements of what if's helps no one in any way and actually does more harm by feeding the fear and ignorance on the matter.
"Might be sentencing their child to death...." I would think it was a child with no ability to differentiate who uttered such a thought fragment.
You need to grow up and be normal and feed your children normally and if there is a problem act then and only then by going to a doctor. Imagining the possibilities and dangers and acting on that before there is any actual danger or problem is the problem.
There are more than enough known real dangers without the addition of any individual's fears to make things worse.
Public discussion of fears and statements of what if's helps no one in any way and actually does more harm by feeding the fear and ignorance on the matter.
"Might be sentencing their child to death...." I would think it was a child with no ability to differentiate who uttered such a thought fragment.
You need to grow up and be normal and feed your children normally and if there is a problem act then and only then by going to a doctor. Imagining the possibilities and dangers and acting on that before there is any actual danger or problem is the problem.
There are more than enough known real dangers without the addition of any individual's fears to make things worse.
2
If your child puffed up, developed hives, and puked the first time he ate peanuts, walnuts, sesame seeds, poppy seeds, I could go on, you might be a little less smug.
15
who needs a PhD when you got Facebook
24
Have there been any studies to examine why peanut allergies are so prevalent in the US? I did not know anybody with peanut allergies till I moved to the US 20 years ago. I still do not know anyone outside the US with an allergy, while in this country I know many.
14
Many "first foods" in other parts of the world have nut as part of the food so infants are exposed to nut protein early on. This is actually the hypothesis-generating information that led to the multiple studies showing that peanut allergy can be reduced by early exposure.
3
Possibly the high rate of cesarean births. When born by c-section, a baby does not benefit from the microbes of the vaginal wall which are said to give strengthen a newborn's immune system. The NY Times wrote about this in a cover article in their magazine a couple of years ago - it was on the topic of microbes and how they are not the antichrist.
4
My uneducated guess: in some countries, children start eating peanut-containing foods at a young age (e.g., "Bamba" snacks in Israel), so they get early exposure.
Children in other countries may not be exposed to peanuts or peanut butter very often (or at all), because those foods aren't very common there. (I know a number of Western and Eastern Europeans who've expressed disgust at the taste and texture of peanut butter...)
Children in other countries may not be exposed to peanuts or peanut butter very often (or at all), because those foods aren't very common there. (I know a number of Western and Eastern Europeans who've expressed disgust at the taste and texture of peanut butter...)
2
These new guidelines are based on solid research. They give hope and a mechanism to help children live normal lives, unafraid of peanuts being in foods. If I was a new parent, this would be a tremendous relief! There is no need to feel guilty if you followed earlier advice....that was based on nothing other than "common sense." The research hadn't been done yet. But it was the best they had.
The skepticism expressed by some parents further illustrates the divide between those who listen to and understand scientific research --- or at the very least "believe" it as they should --- and those who go with their gut no matter what the evidence.
We are on dangerous ground. We have a large sector of the public who is easily conned and is afraid of media and science. How else could this country have elected a climate science denier to the presidency? (And the US is not alone in this trend.) We need to teach our children the skills to be critical thinkers, not mindless followers. If we don't.....well, read read George Orwell's 1984.
The skepticism expressed by some parents further illustrates the divide between those who listen to and understand scientific research --- or at the very least "believe" it as they should --- and those who go with their gut no matter what the evidence.
We are on dangerous ground. We have a large sector of the public who is easily conned and is afraid of media and science. How else could this country have elected a climate science denier to the presidency? (And the US is not alone in this trend.) We need to teach our children the skills to be critical thinkers, not mindless followers. If we don't.....well, read read George Orwell's 1984.
10
I think more study is needed. There are many children who are not fed peanuts as toddlers and not all of them develop peanut allergies. Why is this?
2
two answers...1) who knows?, 2) genetic differences
5
Pat, biology is complex.
Antibiotics, Hygiene Hypothesis, Air Quality, GMOs, Pesticides, rolling in pollutants instead of dirt.
We hypothesis that our daughter with allergies had her stomach bacteria population destroyed by full spectrum antibiotics while spending a week in NICU from the minute she was born at term.
How to prove that hypothesis is impossible. Was the week in NICU necessary? Apparently it was only necessary because they had started the course of antibiotics and had to finish it even though the bloodwork showed no bacterial infection. First do no harm.
Antibiotics, Hygiene Hypothesis, Air Quality, GMOs, Pesticides, rolling in pollutants instead of dirt.
We hypothesis that our daughter with allergies had her stomach bacteria population destroyed by full spectrum antibiotics while spending a week in NICU from the minute she was born at term.
How to prove that hypothesis is impossible. Was the week in NICU necessary? Apparently it was only necessary because they had started the course of antibiotics and had to finish it even though the bloodwork showed no bacterial infection. First do no harm.
1
So many of these comments sadden me deeply. I'm the parent of a young boy who was diagnosed with a severe peanut allergy at the age of 1 - right after the very first time we gave him peanut butter.
My wife and I love peanuts. Nobody in my family ever had a peanut related allergy. My wife ate peanut butter the entire time she breast fed our son (a full year). She did everything that science told her to do, knowing that early exposure was a key to preventing these problems, and to no avail.
I was once like many posters here. Peanut allergies were some fraud that was being perpetuated on society by needy, helicopter parents. Just go roll in the dirt or play in the barn - that will fix everything. I didn't know anybody with a peanut allergy, so peanut allergies must not exist.
Look, I get it - there are "anti-peanut maniacs" out there. They use words like "murder," and some want peanuts removed from society altogether. I don't speak for those people.
What I find upsetting are people who refuse to recognize that a single peanut can kill a small child before the worst symptoms present themselves - and that's assuming that the teacher/caregiver is watching carefully. All some people can think about is a peanut butter cupcake in their kid's lunchbox, and tell us all about some anecdotes about growing up in a barn and never knowing anybody with a problem.
Peanut allergies are real, and they are serious.
My wife and I love peanuts. Nobody in my family ever had a peanut related allergy. My wife ate peanut butter the entire time she breast fed our son (a full year). She did everything that science told her to do, knowing that early exposure was a key to preventing these problems, and to no avail.
I was once like many posters here. Peanut allergies were some fraud that was being perpetuated on society by needy, helicopter parents. Just go roll in the dirt or play in the barn - that will fix everything. I didn't know anybody with a peanut allergy, so peanut allergies must not exist.
Look, I get it - there are "anti-peanut maniacs" out there. They use words like "murder," and some want peanuts removed from society altogether. I don't speak for those people.
What I find upsetting are people who refuse to recognize that a single peanut can kill a small child before the worst symptoms present themselves - and that's assuming that the teacher/caregiver is watching carefully. All some people can think about is a peanut butter cupcake in their kid's lunchbox, and tell us all about some anecdotes about growing up in a barn and never knowing anybody with a problem.
Peanut allergies are real, and they are serious.
118
Your fears are well-grounded. The study did point out that 10% of the babies tested already had an allergy (based on skin test) and were excluded from the study. These babies may have allergies no matter what.
So the new guideline would be have your baby tested very early and introduce nuts very early as long as the skin test is minimal or normal.
There will always be some who are allergic no matter what. But if these new protocol are followed, the problem will decline and those with nut allergies will be in the minority and no longer stigmatized. I think it's the over-protectiveness of some parents that gives those with real concerns a bad name.
My oldest daughter is lactose-intolerant. When she was a baby she had so many ear infections and began to lose some hearing. They wanted to put in tubes. (BTW, I breastfed her for almost a year.) On a hunch I asked the ENT if we could take her off milk for a few months. He agreed and it worked. Her ears cleared and she never had another infection. He was so impressed he said he felt this deserved further study.
Nonetheless, through-out her life (she's 27 now), I never considered she was lactose-intolerant. Nobody else in the family was. But she insisted, took Lactaid, and avoided milk, etc. I kind of didn't believe her until we did 23andMe (genetic testing). Lo and behold, she came up lactose intolerant!! None of the rest of us did.
Yes, some children will still have allergies no matter what.
So the new guideline would be have your baby tested very early and introduce nuts very early as long as the skin test is minimal or normal.
There will always be some who are allergic no matter what. But if these new protocol are followed, the problem will decline and those with nut allergies will be in the minority and no longer stigmatized. I think it's the over-protectiveness of some parents that gives those with real concerns a bad name.
My oldest daughter is lactose-intolerant. When she was a baby she had so many ear infections and began to lose some hearing. They wanted to put in tubes. (BTW, I breastfed her for almost a year.) On a hunch I asked the ENT if we could take her off milk for a few months. He agreed and it worked. Her ears cleared and she never had another infection. He was so impressed he said he felt this deserved further study.
Nonetheless, through-out her life (she's 27 now), I never considered she was lactose-intolerant. Nobody else in the family was. But she insisted, took Lactaid, and avoided milk, etc. I kind of didn't believe her until we did 23andMe (genetic testing). Lo and behold, she came up lactose intolerant!! None of the rest of us did.
Yes, some children will still have allergies no matter what.
12
Us too!
Peanut allergies are real and can be serious, I agree.
I think many of us here are reacting to the blow-back mentioned in the article by some parents who seem UPSET that scientists are suggesting a preventative measure.
I think many of us here are reacting to the blow-back mentioned in the article by some parents who seem UPSET that scientists are suggesting a preventative measure.
10
"...posted on the Facebook page of kidswithfoodallergies.org"
Dr. Stay-at-home-mom - still doing cutting edge research on via the scanning-goggle-microscope and the DNA-Sequencer-Blog-tool.
Dr. Stay-at-home-mom - still doing cutting edge research on via the scanning-goggle-microscope and the DNA-Sequencer-Blog-tool.
4
I feel for the parents and quite frankly I do blame the medical profession because when they came up with the advice on peanut allergies, they didn't notice something right away, that after the whole frenzy about peanut allergies came about, we suddenly saw the number of people with the allergy going up.
Not to mention that allergies are an immune system response, and doctors have known for a long time that for example, kids who live on farms or routinely are exposed to dirt and the natural world have lower rates of things like Asthma, food allergies, skin allergies and also tend to develop less of the childhood diseases that plague other kids...and the reason is well known, exposure early to the various bacteria allows the immune system to build up naturally.
The problem is that the medical profession often jumps at things and assume correlation and causality are the same thing. For 40 years there were studies showing that dietary cholesterol didn't affect heart disease, but because it is 'obvious' that fat in food must clog arteries, they promoted that idea.
The real problem is parents suddenly became aware of all the 'threats' to their children, and started wrapping them in a bubble. Kid puts something in their mouth, and you would think they were swalling polluted water, kids want to play on the ground and they are whipping out purel and the like.
Not to mention that allergies are an immune system response, and doctors have known for a long time that for example, kids who live on farms or routinely are exposed to dirt and the natural world have lower rates of things like Asthma, food allergies, skin allergies and also tend to develop less of the childhood diseases that plague other kids...and the reason is well known, exposure early to the various bacteria allows the immune system to build up naturally.
The problem is that the medical profession often jumps at things and assume correlation and causality are the same thing. For 40 years there were studies showing that dietary cholesterol didn't affect heart disease, but because it is 'obvious' that fat in food must clog arteries, they promoted that idea.
The real problem is parents suddenly became aware of all the 'threats' to their children, and started wrapping them in a bubble. Kid puts something in their mouth, and you would think they were swalling polluted water, kids want to play on the ground and they are whipping out purel and the like.
7
When my twin girls were babies, I knew (or thouth I knew) all the cutting-edge stuff about what to do or not to do. I read the NY Times after all. My wife, however, was not up on the latest trends, but has more common sense. One day I found her feeding our girls, then six months, a tiny bit of peanut butter. "Uh, should you be doing that?" I asked. "They don't recommend peanut butter until the children are much older," I lectured her. As I watched, I could see the girls' faces flushing red upon eating the peanut butter. Well, they were fine and it turns out that common sense is much more important than the latest trendy advice from scientists. This article lets scientists off way too easily: yes, their erroneous advice caused a generation of children to have peanut allergies that were completely unnecessary.
3
"it turns out that common sense is much more important than the latest trendy advice from scientists"
That's demonstrably untrue-- there are many, many examples of "common sense" practices (e.g., bloodletting) that were subsequently debunked by scientific study.
Many parents used to think that infectious diseases like typhoid fever were caused by "miasmas" (or bad air), and would do things like making their children sleep in freezing-cold rooms with open windows in the middle of winter. That was common sense to them at the time.
That's demonstrably untrue-- there are many, many examples of "common sense" practices (e.g., bloodletting) that were subsequently debunked by scientific study.
Many parents used to think that infectious diseases like typhoid fever were caused by "miasmas" (or bad air), and would do things like making their children sleep in freezing-cold rooms with open windows in the middle of winter. That was common sense to them at the time.
2
Having lived in Asia for many years it was clear that Asian babies where not negatively affected by peanuts . No allergies. Peanuts there are the mainstay of every meal: mother's milk, sauces, cookies, oil, salads, etc. - no way for babies to avoid it.
7
Or babies with allergies were among the higher rates of childhood death?
3
To those asking why there are so many peanut allergies today compared to generations past: It was in the NY Times that I recall reading, a few years back, that an increase in cesarean births may be to blame. The article was a long one in the Times magazine, and posited that the microbes that a newborn gets from a vaginal birth are good for the immune system, while their absence during cesarean births leads to the infant not getting that immunity boost. To me this makes sense and deserves further study (and please don't reply with personal stories about how your c-section child is not allergic and your non c-section child is - the plural of anecdote is not data).
9
These studies are being done.
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/should-c-section-babies-ge...
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/should-c-section-babies-ge...
I have just started my child (6 months) on solid food. When I was pregnant, I tried to eat a little of everything (even seafood, which I dislike), because I felt that it would help my child not get allergies nor be a picky eater (note: science is out on this). I am doing baby led weaning, which is basically where you skip purees and just give your child what you are eating but without salt, sugar and in sizes they can handle (not bite sized but that they can grab on to, so pretty big). Figured people who used to have 6 kids in former times were definitely not over analyzing what they gave babies. As my child continues to breastfeed and really only ingests a small amount of food, I feel this really helps him with the small amount he does take in. The only problems I really had was when I started cereal and solids too young (4.5 months) and tried to reduce milk to solid (didn't know about baby led weaning then). Now he "eats" tons of veggies, meats, fruit, etc., but the portions are so small I have the feeling this with trusty breast milk helps his body learn. Don't vaccines kind of work the same way? Introduce something in a little amount so your body learns to fight it later on? Children's bodies are in overdrive learning mode when they are young, so healthy exposure to the outside world (germs!) helps them for life. Genetics may play a role in allergies, but I think the new guidelines make far more sense than the old ones. Eat/do what most people have done in human history.
6
That's great that you are doing that but (as a parent of a food allergic child) trust me that it's not that simple.
1
Israeli kids eat a peanut-based snack called Bamba as virtually their first solid food. Almost no Israeli kids have peanut allergies. This includes Israeli children of European descent, who are genetically similar to the American Caucasian population. There's nothing inherently dangerous about peanuts. It's the immune system's over reaction to them which can be dangerous. But if you train the immune system from a very early age to tolerate peanuts, there's no problem.
6
Here in Italy nuts are popular and routinely given to young children, and I have never heard of a child allergic to peanuts or other nuts. Peanuts allergies are a very American thing, so there must be a reason for this. I'm sure that keeping children from eating peanuts until hey are three must have a role.
8
The fact the US roast peanuts and the rest of the world boils peanuts may have a lot to do with this. Roasting changes the protein make up in a different way to boiling.
4
It is not just an American thing. I live in Australia, which is not only extremely far from the US but which has a fairly different cuisine, and peanut allergies seem to be just as common here as in the US.
3
My family is from Turkey where nuts in general are very popular and I can't say I've ever met a Turkish person with a nut allergy. Very popular to have hazelnuts, pistachios, pine nuts, etc. in many foods. What gives?
54
Peanuts aren't a nut. They are a legume.
6
I don't follow your question. Have you ever witnessed a plane crash? A vehicular death as it happened? If you didn't witness it, do they happen?
Peanut allergies are a reality. Anecdotal stories about never having met a person with a problem does not make the problem a fabrication. I guarantee you that there are people with peanut allergies in Turkey.
Peanut allergies are a reality. Anecdotal stories about never having met a person with a problem does not make the problem a fabrication. I guarantee you that there are people with peanut allergies in Turkey.
3
Peanuts aren't actually "nuts." Someone can be allergic to peanuts but still be able to eat walnuts, hazelnuts, pistachios, pine nuts, etc.
4
Dr Greenhawt's statement in the last paragraph (no peanut allergic children because of something their mother or father did" indicates he did not understand the study. It showed that kids given peanuts at the earliest possible age built a tolerance when their immune systems was young, and were highly unlikely to develop a peanut allergy later. Eating peanuts protected them. Important take away - what parents do does affect the immune system. Sorry if that creates some guilt for parents, but important to understand looking forward.
40
i ate peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Food from the mother is passed to the infant through breast milk. My daughter is severely allergic to peanuts.
1
I'm not a parent. Could I get parents to weigh in on:
What that noise is when I start up the car? And that ache in my side, the parents have informed opinions on that, too, right? And could I get a parent to come over and fix the water heater?
What's that? I'd be out of my everloving mind to think that someone's status as a parent had any relevance whatsoever in those matters?
Thank God we let the parents take point on the vaccine "debate." I look forward to seeing polio reintroduced to the U.S.
Thank you, parents of America. Keep up the good work!
What that noise is when I start up the car? And that ache in my side, the parents have informed opinions on that, too, right? And could I get a parent to come over and fix the water heater?
What's that? I'd be out of my everloving mind to think that someone's status as a parent had any relevance whatsoever in those matters?
Thank God we let the parents take point on the vaccine "debate." I look forward to seeing polio reintroduced to the U.S.
Thank you, parents of America. Keep up the good work!
200
I know, right? My cousin put a helmet on her kid around the house until he was four because he might hit his head if he slipped on the tile kitchen floor. Same kid is 18 now; she's done his Eagle Scout project for him. She'll probably follow him to class in college everyday to give the professors a piece of her tiny little mind. Nuts!
8
Does she still cut up his food for him?
The concept of developing tolerence when the immune system is immature has long been accepted my many immunologists.
75
Agreed. The problem is that the parents are immature.
6
While you may be petrified to introduce an infant to the peanut directly, I craved and ate peanut butter regularly when I was breastfeeding and though this is an anecdote rather than a study, my son had no peanut related issues.
13
I second this anecdotal study. I ate PB throughout breastfeeding and the kiddo has no peanut or any other allergies at this point (he's 9)
3
I did the same thing and my child does have allergies. You prove nothing with this.
5
It's an anecdote. I'm 57, and have never met anyone with a peanut allergy.
1
There should be more emphasis on the only fact here which is that medical experts know relatively little about the underlying causes of inappropriate immune responses, whether it's autoimmunity or hetero-immunity in the case of food allergies. Experts who publish new rules for eating peanuts or other allergenic foods are likely doing a disservice to the public because they are acting on observational data without adequate knowledge of the underlying causes which could be genetic and/or environmental.
Some of these flip-flop guidelines undermine public confidence in research and the scientific method, making truly valuable guidance subject to unfortunate skepticism.
Some of these flip-flop guidelines undermine public confidence in research and the scientific method, making truly valuable guidance subject to unfortunate skepticism.
5
Only if the public is unthinking. Knowing that introducing peanuts early in life prevents peanut allergies later in life does not require knowing the "underlying cause", it simply requires data and analysis of what happens or doesn't happen when peanuts are or are not given to infants.
I don't need to know the physics of electricity to know that when I flip the switch the light goes on or off.
I don't need to know the physics of electricity to know that when I flip the switch the light goes on or off.
3
Ken - It is the fact that, absent deep knowledge of biological mechanisms, observational studies of humans often lead to black and white conclusions analogous to flipping a switch. If only science was that easy.
It would be interesting to look at a map of the country to see where there is a prevalence of peanut related allergies.
Is it found more in the country, city or suburbs?
Are there more kids suffering in farm country or along the coasts?
The geographic location may lead to clues as to what could be causing this.
Is it related to farming chemicals or possibly vehicle emissions? If it's more common in Florida, perhaps it could be something in swimming pool chemicals or whatever. And just how many kids have these allergies? Also, approximately what percentage of them 'grow' out of having them?
I've never seen any peanut allergy data in these regards.
Is it found more in the country, city or suburbs?
Are there more kids suffering in farm country or along the coasts?
The geographic location may lead to clues as to what could be causing this.
Is it related to farming chemicals or possibly vehicle emissions? If it's more common in Florida, perhaps it could be something in swimming pool chemicals or whatever. And just how many kids have these allergies? Also, approximately what percentage of them 'grow' out of having them?
I've never seen any peanut allergy data in these regards.
2
Virtually all of those issues have been the subject of study. Even I, a layman, can answer one of them. Kids raised on farms have fewer allergies than kids raised in cities and suburbs.
4
We grew up eating peanut butter sandwiches with our friends. No such thing as nut-free schools in the past. It's ridiculous. The reason the number of kids with peanut allergies has increased is because scared American parents stopped giving their kids peanuts due to some scientific study by someone somewhere.
I love science, but not to the degree where we make parents paranoid.
I never knew anyone with Autism or a peanut allergy in the 70s.
I love science, but not to the degree where we make parents paranoid.
I never knew anyone with Autism or a peanut allergy in the 70s.
25
You probably did know someone with autism back in the 70s. You just knew him as "the weird kid" instead.
12
So, science is OK with you as long as it doesn't upset someone? Clearly, you do NOT love science!
You never knew anyone with Autism or peanut allergy in the 70s? Well then, case closed!
You never knew anyone with Autism or peanut allergy in the 70s? Well then, case closed!
9
I knew kids and adults with autism in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. It wasn't called autism. It was called mental retardation, or, in the case of adults and children who were mildly affected, "being quirky." Severely affected children were institutionalized, so one rarely saw them, but they existed.
9
More signs that our science education is failing and that social media is a scourge.
46
You mean American science, spoon fed by government and largely controlled by liberal ideology, is failing. Thank me for clarifying that.
2
It is bad parenting to reject science and replace it with parental infallibility.
While peanut allergies and celiac etc. are scary and important, the parents of affected kids are often so obnoxious (much like the anti-vaxxers) that it is hard to take them seriously.
Yes, these parents become socially stigmatized, but the reason has less to do with allergies than it does with the deranged way that the parents interact with the world. I feel bad for the kids - not because of the allergy but because of their parents.
While peanut allergies and celiac etc. are scary and important, the parents of affected kids are often so obnoxious (much like the anti-vaxxers) that it is hard to take them seriously.
Yes, these parents become socially stigmatized, but the reason has less to do with allergies than it does with the deranged way that the parents interact with the world. I feel bad for the kids - not because of the allergy but because of their parents.
100
My son has a life-threatening peanut allergy (and I ate peanuts while breastfeeding him!). My husband and I do everything we can to keep him safe. However, we never assume that this is any one else's responsibility but ours--and we try very hard to not impose on anyone because of what we must do to protect him. Don't call us "deranged" for taking care of our children. Rather, be empathetic and grateful that this does not affect anyone in your life.
7
I fed my son peanut butter when he was about six months old, against what was then the common advice from pediatricians. I imagine you would probably not accuse me of "rejecting science and replacing it with parental infallibility," but only because you agree with what I did. The parents who avoided peanut products in their children, by contrast, were not "rejecting science" - they were following it. Whereas I was the one rejecting scientific advice simply because my gut told me it was not true.
As for the behavior of parents dealing with allergic kids - I can honestly say that if there was a likelihood that a very common food could easily kill my child, I would be pretty "obnoxious" about it too, if by "obnoxious" you mean I would make sure relevant people knew about the allergy, ask other parents if nut products would be served at birthday parties, advocate for nut-free areas of the lunch room and other accommodations, etc. My kid adores peanut butter and as a parent I rely pretty heavily on it, but I respect the realities that families with allergies live, even though they are different from my own. I do not bring a PB&J for a snack at the children's museum; I put out a nut-free bowl at Halloween to make it easy on allergic kids; I ask about nut policies at schools; I ask parents about allergies before having new kids to my house. This is a life and death issue for some families and it is unfair to mock them for treating it as such.
As for the behavior of parents dealing with allergic kids - I can honestly say that if there was a likelihood that a very common food could easily kill my child, I would be pretty "obnoxious" about it too, if by "obnoxious" you mean I would make sure relevant people knew about the allergy, ask other parents if nut products would be served at birthday parties, advocate for nut-free areas of the lunch room and other accommodations, etc. My kid adores peanut butter and as a parent I rely pretty heavily on it, but I respect the realities that families with allergies live, even though they are different from my own. I do not bring a PB&J for a snack at the children's museum; I put out a nut-free bowl at Halloween to make it easy on allergic kids; I ask about nut policies at schools; I ask parents about allergies before having new kids to my house. This is a life and death issue for some families and it is unfair to mock them for treating it as such.
14
I agree, in part, with your comment, but you really should try a little empathy. A mother or father who has seen a little child suffer a life threatening allergic reaction, is never going to get over the terror, at least not completely.
11
perfect example of the paralysis and terror of the one against the all
2
Huh? Did you mistakenly comment here, meaning instead to weigh in on Trump or something.
3
People always balk at accepting the truth, but this is how it has to be. A fatal peanut allergy is of no help to society. The only way to eliminate fatal peanut allergies from the gene pool is to make sure nobody with that allergy passes their genes along. If we feed some peanuts to all small children, most will get used to it, the fittest will survive, and our species will be improved.
And people keep whining on and on about the tragedy of humans dying without realizing that all of the problems on earth today, bar none, are a direct result of human overpopulation. Humans dying is always helpful to the planet at large and thus the human species too. Get over it.
And people keep whining on and on about the tragedy of humans dying without realizing that all of the problems on earth today, bar none, are a direct result of human overpopulation. Humans dying is always helpful to the planet at large and thus the human species too. Get over it.
14
Shorter version of this comment: some people are genetically inferior and deserve to die. I'm amazed that the Times staffer who moderates these comments thinks it's acceptable to let this kind of hate speech through. Would it be OK to make a similar comment about, e.g., members of a particular racial or ethnic group?
6
"Humans dying is always helpful to the planet at large and thus the human species too."
What a dystopian view. Are you volunteering to go first?
What a dystopian view. Are you volunteering to go first?
2
Dear Teacher,
You twist my words completely, stop jumping at shadows. Nothing to do with race, or religion, or tribal affiliation, and everything to do with survivability. You're on board with the laws against brothers and sisters marrying and having kids, right? Those are laws created because of the genetic instability that incest causes, and they're good laws to have.
Dear Darth Vader,
This is the dystopian age, so it's appropriate. We have an ignorant, arrogant fool as president, all sorts of problems are growing worldwide. We need less humans, I know people don't like it, but it's absolutely true. If people had less children, that would do it, but people don't, and so instead we need a higher death rate. I don't feel the need to volunteer to go first, as I am not having children, don't own a car, don't act wastefully, and thus am not a major part of the problem. But if I had a peanut allergy, and ate a peanut and died, I'd be alright with that. Why worry after all, if I'm dead.
You twist my words completely, stop jumping at shadows. Nothing to do with race, or religion, or tribal affiliation, and everything to do with survivability. You're on board with the laws against brothers and sisters marrying and having kids, right? Those are laws created because of the genetic instability that incest causes, and they're good laws to have.
Dear Darth Vader,
This is the dystopian age, so it's appropriate. We have an ignorant, arrogant fool as president, all sorts of problems are growing worldwide. We need less humans, I know people don't like it, but it's absolutely true. If people had less children, that would do it, but people don't, and so instead we need a higher death rate. I don't feel the need to volunteer to go first, as I am not having children, don't own a car, don't act wastefully, and thus am not a major part of the problem. But if I had a peanut allergy, and ate a peanut and died, I'd be alright with that. Why worry after all, if I'm dead.
5
This is not news. We know this from studies on vaccine-deniers. The more science you give these people, the more they dig their heels in. Everyone is now entitled to live in their own internet-fueled delusion-bubbles.
Something coming up against your long-held belief? Why try to understand it and potentially improve your lives? We are becoming a society of sick people who have a greater need to feel superior to the scientists and intellectuals than to improve their own lives. It is sad, really.
Something coming up against your long-held belief? Why try to understand it and potentially improve your lives? We are becoming a society of sick people who have a greater need to feel superior to the scientists and intellectuals than to improve their own lives. It is sad, really.
77
it's not new and it's not the Internet, although it does make things worse; It's human nature. it used to be religion, and religious fanatics. Now we have religious fanatics, science deniers AND the Internet/Social media bubble to reinforce the worse elements in ourselves.
3
My daughter at 6 months (2002) developed food allergies, that were later determined to be protein-related by Dr. Sicherer's group. She was put on formula alimentum and eventually moved to solid foods. During this time, we took it upon ourselves to introduce her to small amounts of restricted foods (ice cream with milk, chicken, peas, peanuts, etc), always with an epi-pen in hand. Now at 14, she has lost those allergies, except when exposed to a large dose of beef - say in a burger or steak. Some of the earlier exposures were done on purpose by us, but I am sure that other exposures occurred at relative's homes, friends, restaurants, etc., even with our checking in advance. Luckily in our case her allergy issues abated and by age 8 she no longer needed an allergy action plan filed at her school. I agree, the kids need to be exposed.
28
But what will the helicopter parents have to whine about if we take away their peanut, shellfish, etc. allergies?
14
And what will self-satisfied jerks have to feel superior about?
10
Of course they're questioning the data. These are people that hold facebook posts, blogs, and unreferenced websites as high authority in raising their children. What's dozens of scientists with data from a dozen years covering thousands of children got on MommysKewl85?
49
I was about to write something about having had a peanut allergy for decades, for far longer than any guidelines have been around. And yes, some kids will still develop them--because they aren't a new thing, we just didn't whine about them continually when I was a kid.
But that's a deck chair on the Titanic as I watch my health care disappear.
But that's a deck chair on the Titanic as I watch my health care disappear.
9
Supposedly, exposure to farm animals etc. prevents asthma. Five months is young for solid food. BTW has any research on a relationship between soy (formula) and peanut in terms of the development of allergies?
5
@what me worry - Good comment - I've also wondered about whether allergic reactions to peanut butter can be triggered by genetically modified soybean oil, which is present in non-organic peanut butter?
2
The question that needs to be asked is how did the American Academy of Pediatrics get this so wrong? How could they have made this recommendation to parents without any real research to back it up? They need to be held accountable for pushing a policy that has led to developing o life-threatening allergies for millions of children.
10
I have been desensitising my peanut allergic patients using the sublingual route safely and effectively for the past 3 years. So far, every case has been successful and there has not been any significant adverse reactions. This treatment is simple and effective. In my mind, there is really no need to fear peanut and tree nut allergy anymore.
18
The toll on parents who have children with food allergies is horrendous -- they are on guard every moment. Their child may be exposed accidentally: a food made on shared equipment, peanut dust blown through the air in an airplane, watching while their kid is left out of birthday parties and activities because they're "THAT KID." I can't imagine what it's like. I hope there is a vaccine or the patch or whatever cure can be developed. Allergies are more common than ever. This may seem funny to some, but it's a matter of life or death to others.
22
A vaccine or a patch? Did you actually read for content?? Did you begin cutting science classes in the 6th grade?
Thank you for this. My 2 year old had anaphylaxis on an airplane. People drive me crazy by telling me that I "caused" his allergies (that they think are fake) and that I should get a dog (we have 3, thanks) and let him play dirt (we do, thanks). Let's have them deal with a dying child on an airplane with only the medical resources I carried aboard and have them laugh then.
10
Hmm maybe I should rethink my habit of, every time I'm on an airplane, blowing peanut dust through the cabin.
1
" Parents of children with allergies often feel that they are subtly accused of causing allergies by being overprotective or of being neurotic and exaggerating the risks."
If the shoe fits, helicopter parents should wear it.
If the shoe fits, helicopter parents should wear it.
38
Not all parents of kids with food allergies are helicopter parents. We take the approach of "kids with allergies need to learn how to live in a world with allergens." But that doesn't mean I don't also stay aware of what it's his environment. He's 3, for goodness sakes.
8
These people are dealing with something that can kill their child in minutes and over which they have little control outside their home. That will make a parent pretty much permanently anxious - or "neurotic" if you will. This reminds me of when I was a child and doctors had the idea anxious mothers caused asthma attacks, instead of the other way around.
7
I wonder if there any cultures that might be prone (genetically) to an allergy because the whole culture isn't primed with peanuts. Nepal? Tibet? I think some Asian cultures, which don't have cheese in the standard diet, have trouble with milk products past babyhood.
1
Today`s peanut allergies are largely the result of food hangups and eating disorders. Eat more. Eat better. Enjoy your life.
10
cjhsa has spoken...problem solved.
6
Parents need to keep the following in mind when it comes to the guidelines, which are based on a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine almost 2 years ago. Even then, their concerns are reasonable, based on inaccurate reporting of the findings by the lay-press as I outline below.
First, the recommendation is not to, willy-nilly, feed your babies peanuts at escalating dosages. This must be done in conjunction with a pediatrician/allergist, who will help you to risk-stratify your child as to whether or not this approach should be taken. That said, 11% of kids with post skin-prick tests who were randomized to consume peanuts were then deemed too high-risk after a reaction to the initial challenge to do this, and their parents were told not to give them peanuts.
That's 1 in 10 kids who had a reaction in the + skin-prick test. That's a lot of kids. This was lost in the NEJM article and completely uncovered in the lay press. And so parents' concerns are real if this is applied out in the wild. Again, the lay-press interpretation of the study underreports the risk of allergy by not mentioning this 10% of kids in the skin-prick test + group that were probably destined to have bad reactions.
Importantly, these kids were excluded in the analysis. And so the outcomes likely underreport the prevalence of peanut-allergies in both arms, but particularly in the skin prick test + arm. I cannot emphasize this enough.
First, the recommendation is not to, willy-nilly, feed your babies peanuts at escalating dosages. This must be done in conjunction with a pediatrician/allergist, who will help you to risk-stratify your child as to whether or not this approach should be taken. That said, 11% of kids with post skin-prick tests who were randomized to consume peanuts were then deemed too high-risk after a reaction to the initial challenge to do this, and their parents were told not to give them peanuts.
That's 1 in 10 kids who had a reaction in the + skin-prick test. That's a lot of kids. This was lost in the NEJM article and completely uncovered in the lay press. And so parents' concerns are real if this is applied out in the wild. Again, the lay-press interpretation of the study underreports the risk of allergy by not mentioning this 10% of kids in the skin-prick test + group that were probably destined to have bad reactions.
Importantly, these kids were excluded in the analysis. And so the outcomes likely underreport the prevalence of peanut-allergies in both arms, but particularly in the skin prick test + arm. I cannot emphasize this enough.
13
Just to be clear, that's 10% of kids ALREADY deemed high-risk (and therefore screened for inclusion in the NEJM-published study). It's not 10% of the general population of kids. The kids in the NEJM study had known severe atopic disease to begin with.
4
We're all looking for the absolute truth on how to raise our children. I realized when my children were very young that some things had more "truthiness" than others and I really needed to consider the source of the advice, my own circumstances and my child to determine if the advice should be followed. This one falls in that category: it makes sense to me that providing some exposure to the things one may be allergic to will allow the body to adjust and for my children, perhaps this would have helped. Science is not static, folks - thank goodness! And there is no checklist to follow in raising children.
25
Get a dog. Let the kid play in the dirt. Eat real food. Put your cell phone down and talk to the kid. All these things work wonders and prevent illnesses.
191
I am really disappointed in the tone of most of these comments. NYTimes readers, and this is the level of response? Snark, sarcasm, and little compassion for those dealing with the disability of food allergy. Until you've lived this life, please withhold your judgement. Your cruelty helps no one, least of all the many children who suffer from this disease, and the parents who are trying hard to help them negotiate the world.
5
Aren't you comfortable on your soapbox, get over it, we are free to speak our minds here
Mom from Charlottesville - I can well imagine that these comments might make a parent of an allergic child feel angry and defensive. I don't like the tone of all the comments either.
But rather than double down, think of the comments as possibly useful feedback about how to communicate with folks who don't live with allergies. Bluntly, the tone of a lot of parents with allergies is just as tone deaf, and just as ignorant.
Teaching your child to navigate is the hardesr and most important thing you'll ever do. Approaching that in an antagonistic way will not help you.
But rather than double down, think of the comments as possibly useful feedback about how to communicate with folks who don't live with allergies. Bluntly, the tone of a lot of parents with allergies is just as tone deaf, and just as ignorant.
Teaching your child to navigate is the hardesr and most important thing you'll ever do. Approaching that in an antagonistic way will not help you.
Competent scientists change their minds, and admit it, when new evidence appears.
What do you do, sir, when the facts change?
What do you do, sir, when the facts change?
45
The article notes that some parents are afraid to follow the new guidelines, but doesn't mention the simple solution. If your child is at risk for allergies (ask your doctor-- risk factors include a family history of allergy and eczema), have the first exposure to peanuts (at 4-6 months) at the dr.'s office. If your pediatrician is reluctant, schedule it with a pediatric allergist-- they do this kind of thing all the time.
151
My daughter has mild eczema. A blood draw can also be done to test for a peanut allergy (and other common allergens). Did this for my 1 YO daughter, and fortunately she tested negative on all the allergies they tested for.
What's the big deal about eating peanut butter as a kid? Everybody did, and peanut allergies were few and far between. P.S. That PBJ sandwich photo is mouthwatering.
40
Nah. That's way too much peanut butter.
3
Man, to have a sandwich so laden as the one pictured would have been so decadent when I was a kid, when the insides were a small smear for taste to get you to eat the bread! That is not a cheap sandwich! I bet there are nice wads of real butter on the inside, too. And a chocolate milk that size! wow, what a lucky kid! Eat slow and savor!
5
Of course parents know better. Why would they believe scientists.
Welcome to the future.
Welcome to the future.
143
If you believe that scientists have come to the correct conclusions in all cases, I have a bridge to sell you. There are studies where the results cannot be replicated.
1
Outrage about scientific findings on social media? What a novel concept (see also: vaccines and autism, climate change, Hillary Clinton and a DC pizzeria).
112
Yet more surprising that the NYT considers it worthy of reporting :)
2
It's the tradition in America for the ignorant to believe they know better than everyone else.
9
You are correct, Dan. One need only have watched yesterday's DJT "press conference" to realize how true that is.
4
Kids and infants in other parts of the world are fed food with peanuts much earlier and do not have the epidemic of peanut allergies we have here. There are places where peanuts and nuts are staple foods.
201
It is because we try to create hyper-clean environments here in the US, so our immune systems are not challenged enough to understand the antigenic nuance of the world at large. As a result, the immune system becomes more "ignorant" and our system of maintaining peripheral tolerance less labile. My recommendation is to eat food off the floor, don't be afraid of mud, and in general let kids be kids.
6
this means absolutely nothing to the families dealing with peanut allergies. thanks but no thanks.
3
Kids and infants in most parts of the world are not raised in sterile environments nor are they born to older mothers and fathers.
great picture ... skip the peanut butter but enjoy that chocolate milk ... LOL !!!
7
Having had my first child in Europe - where I was told I was fine to eat peanuts all through pregnancy and give my baby peanuts, shellfish and just about every other food from 6 months on - I realized that attitudes and practices toward baby feeding and appropriate diet are cultural rather than medical. I think the tremendous spike in food allergies are caused by several factors - but certainly the more strategies we can take to reduce them the better.
158
Soooo tiresome to be dragged into coworkers kvetching about "whomever brought in those peanut cupcakes to my allergic daughter's 2nd grade is perpetrating homicide!" More helicopter parent nonsense. Go get a vaccine already, no wait, that may contain mercury and induce autism...
114
This isn't like fictional vaccine issues - kids *actually* die from nut allergies. They don't get an upset stomach or develop a phantom gluten rash... their throats close up and without immediate treatment, they die. Keeping your child alive when they have a potentially fatal allergy isn't helicopter nonsense.
19
Those cupcakes could literally kill their child. Quickly. That's not helicopter parenting, that's fear that your child will die.
Peanut allergies are found in all kids, not just kids whose parents make the (unwise) choice to not vaccinate.
Peanut allergies are found in all kids, not just kids whose parents make the (unwise) choice to not vaccinate.
12
Wow, really? So, when kids are hospitalized with severe reactions or die, is that also "helicopter parent nonsense"? Allergies-- a real and dangerous condition verified by countless studies-- have nothing in common with a discredited vaccine-autism scare.
13