This is a brief story looking at a systematic review of 146 other studies, concluding that there is likely some reduction in risk of allergy to eggs and peanuts if infants get those foods for the first time between 4-6 months, instead of later.
The review lends more evidence to the theory that some allergies can be avoided, paradoxically, by exposing children earlier to the allergen, such as peanuts or eggs. But this is not the final word, and the researchers make that clear in their review, stating, “these systematic review findings should not automatically lead to new recommendations to feed egg and peanut to all infants.”
This viewpoint is missing from the TIME story, which headlined this story with a very conclusive statement: “Babies Should Eat Eggs and Peanuts Early to Avoid Food Allergies.”
Food allergies are common and on the rise in the U.S. Parents deserve more context and some of the caveats behind why the researchers caution against a blanket recommendation.
Cost does not apply to in this example of eating habits. However, the story would have been stronger with some context about how much money is spent on treating child food allergies.
Even in this short story, we need some metric for measuring the benefit. The story says there was evidence that introducing peanuts earlier to infant diets provided a “risk reduction” of later allergy. How much of a risk reduction? Was the reduction similar between eggs and peanuts?
The journal article itself gives some absolute risk numbers. For egg allergy, the study shows a reduction of 24 cases per 1,000 children. For peanut allergy, the risk is reduced by 18 cases per 1,000 children. But the authors warn that the “certainty of the evidence” was downgraded due to some gray areas in how the studies were done.
According to the news release, the study authors say that we need “a careful assessment of the safety and acceptability of early egg and peanut introduction in different populations” before rolling this out widely. What are these safety concerns? The story doesn’t say.
The story tells us this was a review of past studies including 146 total. It would have been better to describe the systematic review in more detail, including key limitations. For example, while the reviewers looked at 146 studies, they only had five studies that yielded the evidence for eggs and only two studies that yielded the evidence for peanuts.
And, we think this viewpoint stressed in the study’s discussion section didn’t quite make it into the news story, which it should have:
“These systematic review findings should not automatically lead to new recommendations to feed egg and peanut to all infants.”
As we point out in our summary, this seems in direct conflict with the headline on the story (“Babies Should Eat Eggs and Peanuts Early to Avoid Food Allergies”).
The story quotes only one scientist, and that is his written comment from an editorial accompanying the study, not an interview.
This source, Dr. Matthew Greenhawt, has a potential conflict of interest that wasn’t disclosed: He’s a member of the scientific advisory council for the National Peanut Board, among other affiliations clearly stated in the study’s editorial.
This story does not seem to require comparison of alternatives, since it isn’t about treatments.
The food items are widely available.
The story establishes the novelty of the research here:
“This is relatively new thinking. Not so long ago, in 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that allergenic foods be kept away from infants until they were at least a year old, and often older. ..That advice has been amended, and newer evidence has shown that introducing foods earlier is actually better for preventing food allergies.”
The story doesn’t offer much beyond the news release, but it doesn’t appear to use verbatim phrases or quotes.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like