301–310 of 382 posts
[1] https://raisingchildren.net.au/babies/breastfeeding-bottle-f...
> Food allergies are the result of our immune system mistaking something harmless for a severe threat. If you IDS has never seen X and X is unlike anything it has seen, it will probably flag it. > There had been long-standing advice to avoid foods that can trigger allergies during early childhood. At one point, families were once told to avoid peanut until their child was three years old. This advice was never based…
> This advice was never based on science. No, it was based on common sense. If X causes problems, not doing X is generally a good idea. It turns out that in this particular scenario, common sense was wrong. But allergies weren't understood by science, so all we had to go on was common sense.
They had "peanut-free" lunch tables when I was in elementary school, and all I thought was people just need to stop being so sensitive. Even then, guess I was right.
This is not new news, but nonetheless important to replicate and keep studying. I think the first often-cited study about this was in 2008 [1]. There are several more, including one in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 [2]. Basically, the original study looked at Jewish kids in Israel versus the UK and saw that peanut allergies were about 10x lower in Israel, even though Jews of European background (Ashkena…
I still can’t get over that the official guidelines for years were the opposite of this, and it seems to have led to a tremendous increase in severe peanut allergy. I get that public health organizations have to make recommendations in the face of uncertainty. But to get it so wrong, with severe consequences — was there a postmortem or investigation of how that happened? How are people to trust public health guidelin…
This works for nuts too. If people were fine with nuts for so long, I'm not going to believe that it's suddenly a problem. They made a first-world problem, and it's going to take more studies like this (this is just one) to conclude that scientifically.
If you guidelines assume a total lack of criteria from parents it's best to give strict guidance on "no this and that until XYZ".
Example: where I'm raising my kids it is standard medical guidance to avoid minced meat until 5yo because of HUS - a guidance that no one from where I grew up even today ever heard of. Now, Am I living in a place where the risk of catching HUS is higher? Maybe. But more likely is the fact that here it is easier to just tell people that ANY minced meat is a risk instead of explaining that it depends on how you prepare and cook it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can't find Bamba but you have European or Balkan shop nearby you can try buying Smoki [1], it's the same thing. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=smoki&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiE...
Looks like it's what's called Erdnussflips in Germany
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guessing same with honey? I hear people freak out a lot about infants having anything with honey in it. I feel it might be more along the choking lines with raw honey too.
The problem with honey is that it can cause botulism. Infants under 1 are most susceptible.
> Food allergies are the result of our immune system mistaking something harmless for a severe threat. If you IDS has never seen X and X is unlike anything it has seen, it will probably flag it. > There had been long-standing advice to avoid foods that can trigger allergies during early childhood. At one point, families were once told to avoid peanut until their child was three years old. This advice was never based…
> I started giving my own child chewed up food I was eating at about 2.5 months You gave a TWO AND A HALF MONTH OLD CHILD chicken??? this is so incredibly careless that I HAVE to call out this crazy misinformation on HN. DO not ever replicate this please, everyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This advice was never based on science. No, it was based on common sense. If X causes problems, not doing X is generally a good idea. It turns out that in this particular scenario, common sense was wrong. But allergies weren't understood by science, so all we had to go on was common sense.
I don't see how it's common sense to avoid certain foods at a young age to avoid allergies later on. Am I missing some obvious connection? If allergies are caused by the immune system not recognizing X, probably the solution is to introduce X earlier. They had "peanut-free" lunch tables when I was in elementary school, and all I thought was people just need to stop being so sensitive. Even then, guess I was right.
I'm pretty sure that by elementary school some kids have already developed severe peanut allergies. Keeping peanuts away from someone that might go into anaphylactic shock seems the right amount of sensitivity.
Per the article, the time to be "less sensitive" is much earlier when introducing peanuts can reduce their chance of developing an allergy. By elementary school (ages 6-13) it's mostly too late.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with honey is that it can cause botulism. Infants under 1 are most susceptible.
Honey is usually sold pasteurized though so botulism wouldn't be an issue. Just don't go for the fancy natural/raw stuff.
Unless you're positive that botulism wouldn't be an issue in pasteurized honey, I would suggest qualifying your comment with a note that you're just speculating rather than stating it as a fact.