Question:
anyway, back to the point - last nite i ate some & i assume he would have
gotten some in my breastmilk & been sensitised? this morning i gave him a
little of the cake, watched carefully & all was fine.
i had planned to give him another bite tomorrow morning, but totally forgot
& ate a slice tonite for a snack after DS went to bed. so i assume it will
be in my breastmilk again. and he feeds during the nite so he will get more
in my breastmilk.
can someone explain to me how it works? would the challenge have been when
he ate the cake in the morning? was that the 2nd time he was exposed to the
almonds? or is it when it's in breastmilk is it not very concentrated & it's
really when he eats it?
and how long does it take from when you eat it to when it disappears from
your breastmilk?
i'm confused about it (as usual) & want to be sure when i do peanuts as
well.
Answer:
First of all, the problem with challenging via breastmilk is that you
don't actually know for certain if your child has been challenged! Many
children are NEVER sensitized to allergens via breastmilk, but show
sensitivity rapidly once exposed to the food itself.
Second, if you have any family history of allergy, I'd hold off on the nuts
another year or two. Many allergy symptoms aren't easily visible at
first. They can manifest, for example, as a tickle in the throat, and
your 12-month old probably won't tell you about something like that.
(And the same allergy can escalate with repeated exposure.)
Let me clarify: If there's any family history of ANY allergy, even
simple hayfever, do hold off on introducing nuts until your child is at
least 3 years old. The genetic tendency is to allergy, not to any
specific allergy. A lot of parents with nut-allergic children had a
parent who was allergic to nothing more than ragweed.
Of course, the risk of allergy, although rising, is still relatively
low. When you introduce any food, you're playing roulette, and the
wheel is rolling in your favor. It's just that, if you lose, the
consequences are pretty severe.
My ped says that you can try pretty much any foods after 1 year, and that
there is really no scientific evidence to wait longer. From what he says,
there are major changes in the gut between 9 and 12 months, which is why you
wait until after the 12 month mark so that the child can handle various
things that they couldn't before. So - my question is - why wait until 3 years? Is it because there is some
evidence that they will no longer be prone to the allergy at that age (and
my ped is just out of date)? Or is it because by then they are presumably
talking and can tell you about the more subtle signs of allergy that you
wouldn't pick up on from obeservation?
I don't know that the gut can be considered quite sealed just because a
child's hit 12 months - I'd treat it as a possibility that it's still
somewhat leaky. But yes, being able to communicate a reaction is one of the big reasons for
waiting to introduce potentially dangerous foods. Reactions to peanuts can
be swift and life-threatening, and an infant may not be able to telegraph
what's happening quickly enough.
