What To Do About Babies and Peanuts: New Study Finds Early Exposure Can Prevent Allergy

You’ve probably already seen headlines about a study showing that feeding children small amounts of peanut products in the first 5 years of life can prevent the development of peanut allergy. The study was conducted in the U.K., led by Gideon Lack of King’s College London, and was published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine (free full text available here).1

Why is this study important?

Photo by Sanja Gjenero

Photo by Sanja Gjenero

Food allergies are on the rise in Western countries, and peanut allergy is one of the scariest. In the U.S., more than 2% of children and their families are now living with a peanut allergy, representing a 5-fold increase in prevalence since 1997.2,3 And this allergy isn’t just an inconvenience; it’s now the biggest cause of anaphylaxis and death related to food allergy in the U.S.4 This is a huge concern to parents wondering when and how to introduce peanuts to their kids, but the advice on this matter has been really confusing over the last 15 years.

In 2000, the AAP recommended delaying the introduction of peanut and other commonly allergenic foods (i.e., wheat, eggs, fish, cow’s milk) until at least the first birthday and until age 3 for kids thought to be high-risk for allergy.5 While this advice may have seemed reasonable, it was never based on good evidence – just a best guess based on knowledge at the time.

Meanwhile, the incidence of food allergies continued to climb, and epidemiological evidence emerged that avoiding allergens might backfire. In 2008, the AAP issued new guidelines stating that there was no evidence that delaying introduction of solid foods, including common allergens, beyond 4 to 6 months of age would protect children from developing allergies.6 This document was intentionally vague, because at the time, there weren’t any studies to give more specific guidance on when to introduce what, in what amounts, etc. And this flip-flop in advice, which was also mirrored in many other countries, has left a lot of parents confused.

Gideon Lack and colleagues published a study in 2008 that found that the incidence of peanut allergy among Jewish children in the U.K. was 10-fold higher compared with those growing up in Israel.7 Comparing the mean age of introduction of peanut protein between the two countries, they found that babies in Israel were commonly introduced to peanut in their first year, while babies in the U.K. were not. This led them to their hypothesis that early exposure to peanut might help prevent the development of peanut allergy, and that’s what the current study tested.

How was this study conducted?

The researchers recruited babies between the ages of 4 and 11 months that were high risk for developing peanut allergy because they had severe eczema, egg allergy, or both. Before entering the study, the babies were tested using a skin-prick test to see if they were already sensitive to peanut. If so, they were excluded from the study. Those who showed no sensitivity (530 babies) or only mild sensitivity (98 babies) were included in the study and randomized to two groups. In the “avoidance” group, parents were instructed not to feed their children peanut at all. In the “consumption” group, parents were asked to give their children 6 grams of peanut protein per week, spread across at least 3 meals. Both treatments were continued through age 5, when all of the children were tested for peanut allergy.

bambaWhat does 6 grams of peanut protein look like? It’s the amount in about 25 peanuts, or 3-4 tablespoons of peanut butter. In this study, parents in the consumption group were encouraged to feed a snack called Bamba, made of puffed corn and flavored with peanut butter. (Think Cheetos but with peanut butter instead of neon cheese powder.) Bamba was chosen because it was reported to be one of the main peanut sources for Israeli babies in the previously mentioned study. Kids who weren’t into Bamba were given smooth peanut butter instead.

What were the results of the study?

The study found a striking reduction in peanut allergy in the kids that ate peanut during the first 5 years of life. Among the kids without peanut sensitivity at the start of the study, 13.7% of those that avoided peanut had peanut allergy, whereas just 1.9% of those who had consumed peanut were allergic by age 5. That’s an 86% reduction in peanut allergy, and yes, that’s a HUGE result.

Among the kids that had a mild reaction to the baseline skin prick test, peanut allergy was more common, but again, the prevalence was reduced by peanut consumption early in life (10.6% in the consumption group vs. 35.3% in the avoidance group). Thus, the researchers concluded that exposing kids to small amounts of peanut protein early in life could both prevent peanut allergy and even treat those already mildly sensitized. Remember that all of the kids in this study were already high-risk for developing peanut allergy due to having eczema and/or an egg allergy. Normally, about 15-20% of this group would end up with a peanut allergy

We don’t yet know what will happen beyond 5 years of age, but the researchers are conducting a follow-up study in which the same children have been asked to completely avoid peanut for a year to see if this impacts their development of peanut allergy.

What does this mean for parents feeding children?

We should always be cautious about changing practices based on the results of just one study. However, this is is a really strong study showing dramatic results. Although we’ve known for a while that avoiding peanuts early in life doesn’t help, this is the first study to test peanut exposure in high-risk kids, and it showed that this can actually prevent allergy. I think it is a game changer.

Still, there is a lot we don’t know. We don’t know if there is an optimal window for introducing peanut or how much is really needed, and we don’t know if early peanut exposure could help infants that have already developed a real peanut allergy. We need more studies to help clarify these questions, but at least we’re asking the right questions now.

In a Scientific American interview (well worth reading in its entirety), the lead researcher for this study, Gideon Lack, gave his advice to parents wondering what to do about peanuts (Note that in the U.K., the term “weaning” means the introduction of solid foods, not stopping breast or bottle-feeding.):

“Among low-risk kids that account for 80 to 90 percent of population—those that don’t have eczema in the first six months to year of life and don’t have any evidence of food allergies—I would recommend that these children eat peanut protein or peanut in various forms, depending on the culture. Low-risk children should start eating peanut butter as soon as weaning is established. You don’t want peanuts to be the first food because if the kid is gagging or choking, it could represent allergic manifestation but it may also just indicate the child hasn’t developed the coordination to eat solid foods.

Higher-risk kids, those with any manifestation of eczema or food allergy, should see an appropriate health care provider, which could be an allergist or a pediatrician, and have skin prick testing done for peanut as soon as these high-risk symptoms develop. If the child tests negative, the child should be encouraged to eat peanut at home. If the skin test is a small positive, like it was for some of the kids in our study, then the children should have their first exposure or consumption of peanut under medical supervision; and if they tolerate it they should be encouraged to continue to have peanut regularly in their diet for at least the first three years of life. Based on the evidence we have, one could arguably say the first five years of life.”

I think this advice makes good sense. If you’re worried that your baby might be high-risk for peanut allergy, definitely talk to your child’s pediatrician to make a personalized plan for introduction. Keep in mind that you should always pay close attention whenever your baby tries a new food for the first time so that you can be alert to a reaction. Also take care to ensure you’re introducing peanut in a form that your child can handle, like smooth peanut butter or peanut sauces, avoiding whole peanuts until you’re confident that your child can chew them without choking. (Anyone want to place bets on how long it will be until we see a Bamba-like product marketed towards babies and young kids in the U.S.? I’m not aware of one currently.)

The big question in my mind is whether or not this same strategy of early exposure will apply to other common allergens. We already have some evidence for this. For example, one study found that children first exposed to wheat between 4 and 6 months (vs. after 6 months) had a 4-fold decreased risk of wheat allergy.8 Another found that children who first had cooked egg at 4 to 6 months had the lowest incidence of egg allergy, whereas those starting egg at 10-12 months had a 6-fold increased risk.9 Interestingly, this protective effect only worked with cooked egg (boiled, scrambled, fried, or poached), not with egg in baked goods. (Maybe baking denatures the egg protein more?) However, these were observational studies – not randomized – and confounding factors could have influenced allergy risk and early feeding practices. We need more randomized studies like the current peanut one to know if the early exposure strategy will work for other allergens and to figure out optimal timing and amounts of exposure.

The peanut study adds to a growing body of evidence that there may be a kind of sweet spot for introducing food proteins, including those that can trigger allergy – not too early and not too late. Studies show that introducing foods before 4 months can increase the risk of allergy, but waiting too long might also be problematic. Introducing babies to these foods at the right time seems to give their developing immune systems a chance to learn to tolerate the protein rather than attacking it.

As parents, it can be frustrating to see the “official” advice on introducing allergens flip-flop so dramatically in just 15 years. I’m sure there are parents out there who diligently followed the AAP’s advice from 2000, avoiding giving their children peanut, maybe even avoiding it themselves during pregnancy and breastfeeding, whose kids ended up with peanut allergies. Now we know how wrong that advice was, and that’s just maddening. But this is an area where the science has rapidly advanced in the last couple of decades, and the AAP and other health organizations have just been giving the best advice they can based on what we know. Finally, I think we are headed towards true evidence-based recommendations in this area. As a parent who will be introducing peanut to my baby in a few months, I think that’s something to celebrate.

What advice were you given about introducing peanuts to your baby? Will this study change the way you do it with a new baby?

References:

  1. Du Toit, G. et al. Randomized Trial of Peanut Consumption in Infants at Risk for Peanut Allergy. N. Engl. J. Med. 0, null (2015).
  2. Sicherer, S. H., Muñoz-Furlong, A., Godbold, J. H. & Sampson, H. A. US prevalence of self-reported peanut, tree nut, and sesame allergy: 11-year follow-up. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 125, 1322–1326 (2010).
  3. Bunyavanich, S. et al. Peanut allergy prevalence among school-age children in a US cohort not selected for any disease. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 134, 753–755 (2014).
  4. Sampson, H. A. Peanut Allergy. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 1294–1299 (2002).
  5. Nutrition, C. on. Hypoallergenic Infant Formulas. Pediatrics 106, 346–349 (2000).
  6. Greer, F. R., Sicherer, S. H. & Burks, A. W. Effects of Early Nutritional Interventions on the Development of Atopic Disease in Infants and Children: The Role of Maternal Dietary Restriction, Breastfeeding, Timing of Introduction of Complementary Foods, and Hydrolyzed Formulas. Pediatrics 121, 183–191 (2008).
  7. Du Toit, G. et al. Early consumption of peanuts in infancy is associated with a low prevalence of peanut allergy. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 122, 984–991 (2008).
  8. Poole, J. A. et al. Timing of Initial Exposure to Cereal Grains and the Risk of Wheat Allergy. Pediatrics 117, 2175–2182 (2006).
  9. Koplin, J. J. et al. Can early introduction of egg prevent egg allergy in infants? A population-based study. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 126, 807–813 (2010).

The Whole Truth About Infant Cereals: 7 Science-Based Tips

I recently received an email from a reader with a question about baby cereals:

“My wife and I are expecting a baby this October. We are planning to breastfeed but have lots of questions about introducing solid foods, particularly cereals. Do we have to feed the baby commercial baby cereals? I am concerned about all the extra crap that is put into commercial food, including unnecessary sugars and possible GMOs. Is there another product or whole food option that we could use to introduce grains to our baby instead of a commercial cereal product?”

~Brenda and Leah in San Diego, CA

Baby cereals have made a big swing in popularity over the last couple of generations. It wasn’t long ago that they were considered an essential first food, given to baby within the first months or even weeks of life. These days, in some circles, they’ve become a marker of lazy parenting, with conscientious parents choosing instead to prepare their own organic carrot purees or scrambling eggs with butter and breast milk. Cereals, meanwhile, get slammed in blog posts that call them over-processed, pointless, and even toxic. The movement towards more real foods for babies is definitely a good thing, but the scare-mongering about baby cereals is not. Brenda and Leah’s question is a great one, and it deserves an answer that is science-based, not sensationalized.

mother feeding her baby

1. You don’t have to feed a commercial baby cereal.

The reason infant cereals are typically recommended is that they are fortified with iron, and iron can become limiting during late infancy, particularly in breastfed babies. In early infancy, babies are mostly using stored iron that was transferred from mom during pregnancy, but by around 6 months, those stores run low, and they need to be getting some iron from solid foods. At this age, babies are growing and developing rapidly, and studies show that iron deficiency in infancy can cause developmental delays and lasting cognitive deficits.1–3 Breastfed babies are at greatest risk for iron deficiency,4,5 because breast milk is quite low in iron. (The iron in breast milk is efficiently absorbed, but there simply isn’t much of it.)

Commercial baby cereals are fortified with iron, effectively making it an easy way to deliver extra iron to lots of babies. In one study, among breastfed babies fed a fortified cereal daily, only 2.5% developed iron deficiency, compared with 14% of babies fed solids at their parents’ discretion.6 Infant formula is also fortified with iron, so babies that are formula-fed for at least half of their milk meals generally get enough iron that way.

However, there are other sources of iron that are actually better than fortified cereals. Meat, poultry, and fish all contain heme iron, which is more efficiently absorbed in the digestive tract than nonheme iron, the form found in plants like spinach and beans, as well as fortified cereals. Including a source of heme iron in a meal also increases the absorption of nonheme iron, so serving baby a little chicken with lentils actually increases the bioavailability of iron from the lentils. Baby cereals are often recommended as first foods, but this is based more on tradition and culture than on any scientific evidence. There is no reason why you can’t introduce those great heme sources of iron (meat, poultry, fish) as first foods, and in fact, this is now recommended by the AAP. If your baby is consuming 1-2 small servings of meat per day, plus other sources of non-heme iron, then there’s no reason that you have to supplement with an iron-fortified cereal. See more of my tips on ensuring that your baby gets enough iron in this post: 5 Practical Ways to Increase Iron in Your Baby’s Diet. Also, note that your pediatrician should test your baby for anemia around 12 months, so this will at least alert you if your baby is very deficient in iron.

Many babies and their parents also opt to skip spoon-feeding entirely, doing some version of Baby-Led Weaning. Cee simply wasn’t interested in being spoon-fed pureed foods, but she loved feeding herself soft finger foods. That meant that she ate very little infant cereal, except what I baked into muffins or pancakes (mostly to use up the box, but I figured she could also use the extra iron). This route can be fun and appropriate for babies that are ready to self-feed by around 6 months; others may need spoon-feeding and may love the interaction of feeding with a tuned-in caregiver.8 There are lots of options here, and the most important thing is to offer iron-rich foods (cereal or otherwise) and to follow your baby’s lead with texture and timing.

2. Commercial baby cereals may not be as bad as you think.

Here’s the Nutrition Facts label and ingredient list for Gerber’s oatmeal cereal (this one happens to be an organic product, but the conventional version is otherwise the same):

gerber oatmeal label

What’s in baby cereals? Take a look at the ingredient list. Continue reading

New Research on Gluten Introduction to Infants and Risk of Celiac Disease

If you’re worried about your child’s risk of celiac disease and wondering when to introduce gluten-containing foods, then you’ll want to know about two new studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week.

Gluten is delicious to most of us, but it can be devastating to those with celiac disease. Photo by Adrian van Leen

Gluten is delicious to most of us, but it can be devastating to those with celiac disease. Photo by Adrian van Leen

Celiac disease is an immune response to gluten, a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye. It causes inflammation and damage to the small intestine, and while it can be successfully managed with a gluten-free diet, it is a lifelong disease. (Celiac disease is distinct from non-celiac gluten sensitivity, which is a murky and controversial condition that may not be related to gluten at all.)

I reviewed the research on early infant feeding and risk of celiac disease on my blog about a year ago (Breastfeeding, Gluten Introduction, and Risk of Celiac Disease). I have since received lots of comments and messages from parents concerned about this, so I wanted to be sure to write about these important new studies.

These latest studies dramatically advance our understanding of this topic because they are randomized controlled trials. Both started with a group of babies already identified as being high-risk for celiac disease, randomly assigned them to different time of introduction of gluten, and then tracked their development of the disease. Previous studies were all observational, thus only able to identify associations between variables, and were limited by confounding factors and other sources of bias.

The first study was led by researchers in the Netherlands but included children born in 7 European countries and in Israel. 944 babies were identified as being high-risk for celiac based on a genetic predisposition (HLA genotype) and having a first-degree relative (parent or sibling) with celiac. The babies were randomized to two groups, and one group was given a small amount (100 mg) of gluten starting at 4 months of age, while the control group was given a placebo and instructed not to introduce gluten until 6 months, at which point parents in both groups were advised to gradually introduce gluten-containing foods. The incidence of celiac disease was tracked through 3 years of age, with all suspected cases confirmed with an intestinal biopsy. Overall, about 5% of the study participants developed celiac disease by age 3, and it made no difference whether gluten was introduced at 4 or 6 months. It also made no difference whether the babies were breastfed (exclusively or not) or currently breastfed at the time of gluten introduction.

The second study was conducted in Italy and had a similar design but instead compared gluten introduction at 6 vs. 12 months. Continue reading

What’s so important – and stressful – about family dinner?

A recent study about the stress of getting family meals on the table has been getting lots of attention from both the media and moms. A Slate piece, “Let’s Stop Idealizing the Home-Cooked Family Dinner,” posted Wednesday, has already garnered 3.5K comments on the article itself and more than 26K Facebook shares. This has obviously struck a nerve. While feeding a family is a big and often stressful job, some perspective about why we do it and what matters most about family meals might be helpful to families feeling the mealtime crunch.

The study itself, titled “The Joy of Cooking?”, was published in Contexts, a publication of the American Sociological Association geared to be accessible to the general public. The paper itself is a really interesting read and freely available online.

Researchers in the sociology and anthropology departments at North Carolina State University conducted the study. This was a qualitative study, which means that the data came in the form of stories, generated from interviews with real people. From the paper:

“Over the past year and a half, our research team conducted in-depth interviews with 150 black, white, and Latina mothers from all walks of life. We also spent over 250 hours conducting ethnographic observations with 12 working-class and poor families. We observed them in their homes as they prepared and ate meals, and tagged along on trips to the grocery store and to their children’s check-ups. Sitting around the kitchen table and getting a feel for these women’s lives, we came to appreciate the complexities involved in feeding a family.”

These kinds of methods are common in sociology and anthropology research, and they allow researchers to understand the many complex variables that contribute to how people feel and why they feel that way. However, we have to be careful about interpreting these studies beyond the individual stories that they provide. For example, this study wasn’t a random sample of moms, and it can’t give us quantitative information like the percentage of moms who find cooking to be an unbearable chore versus rewarding or enjoyable. It doesn’t allow us to look at correlations between family income and nights of home-cooked meals per week, for example.

Here’s what it can tell us: Continue reading

Amylase in Infancy: Can Babies Digest Starch?

Several readers have emailed me to ask about babies’ ability to digest starch. Here’s one:

“I have noticed you recommending cereals for babies several times.  I am sure that you are aware that many people look at feeding a baby grains before the age of one or even two as if you have offered your child strychnine. One of the reasons cited is that they supposedly do not have amylase to digest grains before that time. I have often wondered what exactly is happening to the cereal if it is not being digested, but the only statement I could find is something about it “rotting” in the gut.

I would love to get information from a scientific point of view on this topic.  Everything I have been able to find thus far has been very biased towards one point of view or another. Either “cereal is the perfect first food. Easy to digest and enriched with iron” from the infant cereal companies or “Cereal is junk.  No infant should ever eat grains. It is not natural or traditional and they can’t digest it” from online parenting sites.

I need a little clarity and common sense.”

~Hope

I love the skepticism in Hope’s email, and I can also empathize with her frustration about how difficult it is to find good information about a seemingly simple question: Can babies digest starch? If you search for the answer to this question online, you will run into dire warnings of the dangers of giving starch to babies. But these sites might set off your woo detector – as they should. So, after receiving multiple emails about this question as well as seeing it mentioned in discussions on the Science of Mom Facebook page, I figured it was time to put some evidence-based information about babies and starch digestion on the Internet.

Researching this question has given me an excuse to read some classic nutrition physiology papers harkening back to the 1960’s and 1970’s, and it’s brought back memories of years in the lab, exploring nutrient digestion and metabolism. And starch digestion in infancy, it turns out, is a really neat story.

Let’s start with some basics about carbohydrate digestion.

What is starch? How is it digested?

Starch is a type of complex carbohydrate. Made from lots of glucose molecules bonded together in long, branching chains, it is a plant’s way of storing glucose – product of photosynthesis and source of energy – in a stable form. We find starch in grains, root vegetables, winter squashes, beans, and some fruits, like bananas. Starch is an important storage depot for the plant, and it also makes for tasty staple foods for cultures around the world.

One little section of starch, containing 3 glucose molecules. Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

A chain of 3 glucose molecules, like a tiny section of starch.

Glucose is the major fuel for the cells of the body. When we eat starch, we have to break the bonds in those chains of glucose molecules, liberating them to be absorbed from the small intestine into our blood. Starch digestion begins in the mouth, where salivary amylase starts chopping up those large glucose chains. When this partially digested starch gets to the small intestine, amylase made and secreted by the pancreas jumps in to do more bond-breaking and is responsible for most of starch digestion in adults. A suite of enzymes produced by the cells lining the small intestine, including sucrase, isomaltase, maltase, and glucoamylase, work on the remaining short chains, finishing up the job and making glucose available for absorption.

Starch Digestion in Infants

Infants go through some incredible nutritional transitions in the first months of life. Prior to birth, their growth and development is fueled almost entirely by glucose from mom, absorbed across the placenta. After birth, they have to abruptly transition to an exclusive milk diet, which is high in fat and lactose, still a relatively simple sugar. As they start solid foods, babies have to adapt to a much more complex and varied diet. Around the world, starch is a major source of energy in the diets of children and adults alike. But when infants are first introduced to starchy foods – often in the form of cereals and porridges – starch is a novel nutrient to their digestive tract. They need to turn it into glucose, but are they equipped to do this? Continue reading

Breastfeeding, Gluten Introduction, and Risk of Celiac Disease

A study published yesterday in the journal Pediatrics suggests that later introduction of gluten and breastfeeding beyond 12 months both increase the risk of a child developing celiac disease. These new findings add to the already muddy waters of our current understanding of the role of infant feeding in celiac disease.

Photo by Shree Krishna Dhital, via Wikimedia Commons

Celiac disease is an immune response to gluten, a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye. Celiac is characterized by inflammation and damage to the small intestine, leading to symptoms such as diarrhea and digestive pain. In the U.S., celiac disease is present in about 1 in 141 people, although many of these cases go undiagnosed. Infants that develop celiac disease often have poor growth or weight loss, because intestinal damage compromises nutrient absorption. They also may have chronic diarrhea and a swollen, painful belly.

Celiac can usually be treated with a gluten-free diet, but there isn’t a cure for the disease. Multiple genetic markers have been identified for celiac disease, but many genetically susceptible individuals tolerate gluten and never develop symptoms, leading to speculation about other risk factors, including early childhood nutrition.

This latest study was a large, prospective survey of infant feeding practices and development of celiac disease in Norwegian children. Parents were asked when they first introduced gluten and how long they breastfed their babies. Children that developed celiac disease were tracked through Norway’s national medical system. The study included 324 children with diagnosed celiac disease and 81,843 without celiac. The researchers then looked for patterns in the data that might help to explain why some children developed celiac disease and others did not.

There were two major findings to emerge from this study:

  1. Children that had not yet tried gluten by 6 months of age were more likely to develop celiac disease.
  2. Breastfeeding at the time of introduction to gluten did NOT appear to be protective. In fact, breastfeeding for longer than 12 months was associated with an increased risk, although it was borderline significant (P=0.046).

Both of these findings are contradictory to current infant feeding advice in the U.S. The AAP’s Section on Breastfeeding recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months before introducing solid foods, followed by “continuation of breastfeeding for 1 year or longer as mutually desired by mother and infant.” The same AAP policy goes on to say, “There is a reduction of 52% in the risk of developing celiac disease in infants who were breastfed at the time of gluten exposure.” But this Norwegian study effectively found that following the current advice of the AAP seems to increase a baby’s risk of celiac, not decrease it.

Obviously, we need more information here. And as usual, one study isn’t enough to give us the full picture of what we know and don’t know about this topic.

To understand the evolving hypotheses around celiac disease and infant feeding, we need to go back to Sweden in the mid-1980’s, when the rates of celiac disease in young kids suddenly quadrupled from an incidence of 1 in 1000 births to 4 in 1000 births over just a few years. It was an epidemic, and it appeared to be isolated to Sweden; neighboring countries weren’t affected. What’s more, celiac was showing up in really young kids. The median age of diagnosis during the epidemic was just about a year old. In 1995, celiac disease in Sweden plummeted back to pre-epidemic levels, and the median age of diagnosis increased to 4 years of age. Continue reading

What’s Your Feeding Style? (Fearless Feeding Review and Giveaway)

Do you have a feeding philosophy? What’s your feeding style?

These are not the most common topics in parenting discussions. We’re often too busy talking breast and bottle, baby led weaning or purees, organic or conventional, and how to get our kids to eat more vegetables. But the question of feeding style, I believe, matters more to children than any of these oft-discussed topics.

I am really pleased to have a new book on my shelf that covers the HOW and WHY of feeding children just as well as it covers WHAT to feed: Fearless Feeding: How to Raise Healthy Eaters from High Chair to High School, by Jill Castle and Maryann Jacobsen. Both authors are registered dieticians, mothers, and bloggers. They take a long-term view on feeding – that we shouldn’t just be concerned with what our kids are eating today, but also about teaching kids to eat well for a lifetime.

9781118308592_Castle.inddFeeding style is one of the first topics in Fearless Feeding, so if you’re not sure how to describe your own feeding style, here’s your chance to give it some thought. Castle and Jacobsen discuss 4 feeding styles, analogous to parenting styles that may be familiar to you: Continue reading

Breastfeeding a Toddler? Should You Be Concerned About Iron Deficiency?

You may have heard about a study published in Pediatrics last week (Maguire et al. 2013) showing an association between iron deficiency and breastfeeding beyond a year. If you’re breastfeeding a toddler, or considering it, you might be wondering if you should be worried about iron deficiency. There is very little research on breastfeeding beyond a year in developed countries, so this study is worth a closer look. (If you’re interested, I’ve written before about some of that research, my own reasons for choosing to breastfeed beyond a year, and my experience of weaning my two-year-old.)

What This Study Shows

This was a cross-sectional study of children ages 1-6 in Toronto, Canada. Blood samples were taken from 1647 children, and their mothers were asked, “How long has your child been breastfed?” We always have to be cautious about studies based on parental recall. However, research shows that mothers actually answer this question with good accuracy (Li et al. 2005). Of the children in this study, 93% had been breastfed at all, and median breastfeeding duration was 10 months. Twenty-seven percent of children were breastfed for more than one year, and 4% breastfed for more than two years.

The children’s blood samples were analyzed for serum ferritin and hemoglobin. Serum ferritin reflects the amount of iron stores available for use by the body, so it can be used to assess iron deficiency. If an iron deficient child also had low hemoglobin, he was diagnosed as having iron deficiency anemia. In this study, the prevalence of iron deficiency was about 9%, and 1.5% had iron deficiency anemia, findings similar to other studies in developed countries (Baker et al. 2010, full text here).

This study showed that kids that were breastfed for longer were more likely to be iron-deficient. Each month of breastfeeding beyond baby’s first birthday increased the risk of iron deficiency by about 5%. Children who were breastfed for longer than a year were estimated to have 1.7 times the odds of being iron deficient than those breastfed for less than a year. Continue reading

Does My Child Drink Too Much Milk?

glass of milk copyA couple of nights ago, I had the pleasure of going out for drinks with a couple of other moms, sans kids. Predictably, we ended up talking about our kids, among other things. One of my friends mentioned that her 2-year-old daughter is a big fan of cow’s milk, drinking about 3 cups per day. This reminded me of a study I’d gotten wind of earlier in the week that recommended kids drink only 2 cups of milk per day. Should my friend cut back on her daughter’s beverage of choice? I needed to look at the study more closely.

The study in question (The Relationship Between Cow’s Milk and Stores of Vitamin D and Iron in Early Childhood (1) – paywall) was conducted by a Toronto research group led by Jonathon Maguire and published on Monday in the journal Pediatrics.

The headlines about this study have made it sound like we now have the final word on just the right amount of cow’s milk for kids. The Atlantic posted a story with the headline “Kids Should Drink Exactly Two Cups of Milk per Day,” and others published similar statements. I will argue that it’s just not this simple, and prescriptive nutrition messages like these just end up confusing parents.

What is neat about this study is that it looked at two important nutrients for young kids: vitamin D and iron. Deficiency of both of these nutrients is common and cause for concern. Continue reading

Toddler-Approved Veggies: Roasted Beet and Broccoli Slaw

We’ll complete BabyC’s series of veggie recipes (see kale and carrots for more) this week with my favorite – a roasted beet and broccoli slaw.

This recipe comes from Alton Brown’s I’m Just Here for the Food. Like the carrot salad, it features grated veggies, and this presentation seems to appeal to my toddler. We’ve been inundated with beets around here. This salad turned out to be my favorite beet recipe this season. It calls for broccoli stems, which is awesome since I occasionally throw away the stems in favor of the prettier florets. The truth is that the broccoli in this salad is totally overwhelmed by the beets in both color and taste. That’s not a bad thing if you’re feeding kids that are suspicious of green color and bitter taste. The broccoli does add a nice crunch, and of course, great nutritional value. Continue reading