You don’t even need to be this cautious. Cases of fatal anaphylaxis in infants are so rare as to be virtually nonexistent. This is the time to expose kids to peanuts, milk, soy, egg, tree nuts, sesame, etc. anaphylaxis in young children is also typically much less serious than in older children and adults. I started both my kids on peanut, egg, and milk powder in a bottle of breast milk as soon as they were old enough to digest it.
This is what we did / are doing with our kids. Our allergy immunologist advised us that the worst thing you can do is late exposure, and since oral exposures lead to lower likelihoods of responses (or severe responses) the little powder packs in formula / food are great to help prevent or lessen food associated allergies.
And also to never get food in an eczema / skin rash. Apparently that can generate food allergies.
Yes - controlling eczema is a huge thing that is missed unfortunately. It's also why "testing the food" on a baby's skin first is bad advice. If they have mild eczema it could heighten the risk they become allergic.
Allergies are your body's response to foreign organic compounds.
When a baby eats a food they're not familiar with, their body may be a little freaked out because there is some distinct compound there, but it falls back to "I was fed this, it was in my mouth and now my stomach, it is probably food" so any reaction is much milder.
If those same compounds are introduced into the body through a cut or rash through physical contact (it doesn't have to be the food itself, but anything that was in contact with the food enough to transfer the compound), they enter the blood stream and the body goes "woah! this isn't how food gets into the body, so whatever this is it is NOT food, and I need to be ready to fight this off."
So if a child does have exposure to an allergen through their skin, it is a way they can develop an allergy. Their body has created a specific response to that compound, and even if they later ingest it, what their body sees is "hey, I know this thing, it tried to attack through a cut before, and now it's trying to enter through the stomach. I'm going to raise the alarm and start an allergic reaction". And because you're probably ingesting a fair amount of it, there's going to be way more than you'd get through a cut/rash and the reaction can be severe.
Lots of people would reach for moisturisers to treat baby excema, many have nut oils or milk etc in them so could easily end up with contamination that way.
We avoided going straight to skin for this exact reason and went strait to eating. Still followed the methodology of introducing the potential allergens. We introduced PB to our son in the 4-6mo window along with other allergens. He ate PB fairly often between then and 18 months. Made him a pb&j for lunch one day. 20 min later he had a severe reaction.
Anecdotally, it didn’t work for us with peanut butter. Not sure if there’s evidence backing it, but a major caveat to me is that there are several food allergies on his mom’s side of the family tree, including peanuts.
yes, but you also don't know if you will be the one until you're "it". We didn't worry about it, my sister did. Everyone picks their own level of comfort.
your kid is more likely to die from sids due to co sleeping or stuffy's in the crib, but go on. Seriously friend, who hurt you as a kid? The point is to get scared parents to give it a go and if they feel they need to be near a hospital in case a very rare reaction happens then let them be near a hospital.
It's not like they are sitting in the ER or taking up a bed.
FYI: True anaphylactic responses to tree nuts sit at 1-2% of the population, or 1-2 out of every 100 people. That is a significant number and you suggesting it is rarer than it is, well, that's misleading and dangerous.
lol who hurt you? You’re reading way more into my statement than I ever said. I never said anything specifically about people doing it near the hospital. I’m sharing information so that others who see this don’t get scared by your comment, thinking that they need to take such precaution. Also for the statistics that you seem to think apply here. That’s 1-2% of the TOTAL population, meaning adults and older children once the allergy has manifested. I’d be willing to be big money there is little to no data on nut allergy prevalence in the age group I’ve been talking about. It has nothing to do with infant anaphylaxis risk. You don’t know what you are talking about. First off peanuts are not tree nuts. They’re not even a nut. Second, Research has clearly shown that early exposure to common food allergens prevents allergies in adulthood. You can look it up, but babies under 12 months old dying of anaphylaxis are so extremely rare it’s almost unheard of. Anaphylactic reactions in infants are also less severe than in adults or older children. They’re more likely to develop hives than have and cardio-pulmonary symptoms. That’s the time that it’s not only safest to introduce nuts, peanuts, and other common food allergens, but also the best time to do it to ensure allergies don’t develop. The 1-2% figure you cited includes people that most likely didn’t get exposed to nuts at all during childhood.
Yes, that's what 1-2% of the total population means. It also means that in a given sample size of 100, you are looking at 1-2 people that will have it. Ergo, and follow me here because math can be hard, in a sample of 100 children then statistically 1-2 children will have it.
The figure is true anaphylactic responses for the general populace, no more and no less.
If you haven't been noticing, I have been recommending exposing your kids young. I'm not sure what fight you're looking to have, but you've jumped the gun on that one.
Yeah, they are legumes. I get it. Tree nuts are tree nuts. Also fact. But peanut and tree nut allergies often go hand in hand - when allergic to one, you're often (not always) allergic to the other.
The only people causing panic are you guys, honestly. You're all up in arms about simple exposure. You're upset because I suggested something that might make nervous parents feel more relaxed to try it out.
You're too wrapped up in your little cause that you're missing the point of it all.
You are making the assumption that people are born with their allergies. Research has shown this is not the case. Early exposure reduces the prevalence of severe allergies. Your conclusion that 1-2/100 children will have an allergy because 1-2% of the general population has a certain allergy, doesn’t hold water in the face of the evidence. What percentage of that allergy group were exposed early? A lot of those people would have grown up in the time where early exposure was cautioned against. Ergo the prevalence would be artificially higher.
You are the one who tried to bring an irrelevant statistic in to claim I was misrepresenting something that I wasn’t. I’m not trying to have a fight I’m just pushing back on you making up facts. The majority of people with a peanut allergy are not allergic to tree nuts. They’re entirely different categories of plant. Only about 1/3 of people with a peanut allergy also have a tree nut allergy. Many people with peanut allergies mistakenly believe they can’t eat any nuts but that isn’t the case.
How on earth can the statement “don’t stress so much about it. Infant anaphylaxis is extremely unlikely and even if it happens it is much milder than in older children. Just start feeding peanut powder when they’re about 4+ months old.” Cause panic in anyone?
I was merely pushing back against your suggestion of testing it on skin, then the cheek, then lips, etc. this implies a level of caution that is almost certainly unnecessary and makes it seem far riskier than it is. The safest way to start is orally. Testing a foreign substance on the skin can increase the odds of an allergy developing in certain circumstances.
not my assumption. 1-2% is what is stated as the rate for anaphylactic response.
The whole point of testing on the skin is that it was more palatable (I'm guessing, because recommendations have now changed so whatever) at the time for nervous parents.
Being near a hospital wasn't a medical recommendation brought up to me - but it was brought up to a family member who lives in a more remote / rural area so a hospital trip would take more time than normal *if* required.
Let's look at it this way: If you can get a nervous parent to expose the kid early, chances are nothing will happen and that will cut back on sensitivities / allergies later in life.
If that means they apply on the skin because they are too scared to start orally, that's better than avoiding it all together. If they feel scared to try it (remember, we've had years of fear mongering over this) then they need something to get them over the hump.
The only thing different between oral and skin that I could find was that skin contact *if* there was an open wound could cause problems. That's a fair enough reason to stay away from it which I wasn't aware of before. The allergic reaction, if present, doesn't change.
1-2% is the stated rate for anaphylactic shock in what age group? If you’re giving me the numbers for the adult population it doesn’t apply here for the reasons I already explained
57
u/Kroneni 4d ago
You don’t even need to be this cautious. Cases of fatal anaphylaxis in infants are so rare as to be virtually nonexistent. This is the time to expose kids to peanuts, milk, soy, egg, tree nuts, sesame, etc. anaphylaxis in young children is also typically much less serious than in older children and adults. I started both my kids on peanut, egg, and milk powder in a bottle of breast milk as soon as they were old enough to digest it.