to take part in the EAT Study?

[Crystyclear]

www.eatstudy.co.uk/

just been emailed about this and wondering about whether of not to take part.

50% of babies under the study would be weaned at 3 months on foods associated with allergies and 50% would continue to EBF.

they want to research what triggers allergies and prevent them.

this study might change government policy; it might put my child at risk; it might be an unreasonable risk to take, as i would otherwise of EBF and gone for child led weaning.

what do you think? would you take part? am i unreasonable to consider it?

Nothing wrong with weaning at 3 months, 20 years ago all babies were weaned at 3 months. Makes sense to find out now what your child might be allergic too rather than later on.

I was going to do this, but in the end I didn't for exactly the reason Reality says. I would have felt so guilty if, in the future, DD had problems that could be linked back to it.

However, I do know someone who did it and the amounts that you actually 'wean' them on is tiny. It's not actually early weaning, it's more like early exposure to the tastes, so half a teaspoon every few days.

If they're still doing it when the next (not pfb) baby comes along, I would consider doing it now I've seen it in action.

I think the key point is this (from the link):

There is little evidence that this [ebf to 6 months and avoiding common allergens in particular] prevents allergy. Research studies that set out to find out if avoiding early introduction of allergenic foods reduces food allergy show conflicting results. Moreover, there is some emerging evidence that suggests that the early introduction of allergenic foods may actually protect against the development of food allergy, but this has yet to be confirmed. The theory is that repeated exposure of the immune system at an early age to an allergenic food via the oral route (in other words, eating the food), teaches the body to tolerate the food so it will not cause an allergy when the child grows older.

So the other possible outcome is that if you are randomised to starting solids at 3 months, you might actually protect your baby from allergies. If there was good evidence that this study could harm individual babies, they wouldn't have been allowed to conduct the study in the first place.

I would have done this but don't live near enough London for the reasons Daisy says as much as anything else.

Reality:
I am taking part in this study, my son is now two. He has several life threatening allergies, some discovered thanks to the study, some that have nothing to do with the study but are serious none the less.
Do I feel guilty for enrolling my darling boy into this study? Like hell do I!
I feel blessed to have the expertise of such a great team at the end of a phone/ email/ the M1!

I'm doing this with my DS. We're in the control group but would have been more than happy to be early weaners.

As someone already said, it's not really proper weaning, it's tasters of the allergenic foods and, let's face it, if your DC turns out, through the sensitivity tests, to be a bit wobbly on some foods, wouldn't you rather he/she had a first taste in a hospital surrounded by doctors?

And those who've been banging on about the ethics of this study need to read the details properly. I can't understand how people can misunderstand something so wilfully, seemingly in order to get het up about it in, let's be honest here, rather a DMish way.

Who is funding this study? (on phone and it won't let me open the link)

It sounds hugely unethical to me, and sorry but the pps look like sockpuppets

YANBU.

Reality I think that was a rather harsh post.

All studies with human subjects need to be approved by ethics committees prior to starting. Believe me this is no mean feat.

I would have looked into participating but my dd had the occasional bottle of formula from 10 weeks so I wasn't eligible.

I will read the site properly tomorrow though

Jareth its the food standards agency and the medical research council, both highly respected. Is that good enough for you?

Jareth You've always struck me as a sensible type. Please read all the details, don't just scan as some seem to have done. This is probably one of the safest ways to introduce a group of highly allergenic foods to a baby.

Really? Sensible? :)

I will read it all tomorrow, it does look interesting.

I think this study looks great. I find all the conflicting advice really irritating.

YANBU.

I wouldn't do it, apart from my premature babies having to have formula in the early days so it seems I wouldn't be included, there are two possible answers to the question, it's either safe or it's not.

Besides having almost exclusively BF for 22 months last time we're both fans of BLW as we really got to see it in action.

BTW, the official weaning age has never been 3 months, just HCPs giving their opinion on what they thought it should be. Pre-WWII babies were weaned later.

I'd sign up if my baby was eligible. If they had any reason to believe the early tastes of food would harm babies, they wouldn't be allowed to do the study.

I'd sign my dc up too if I could. DD has severe allergies and is being treated by some of the team working on this study. They are the best in the country. Those who are questioning the ethics need to look into the study a bit more; this has all been thoroughly considered and addressed.

Its a good study. My friend is doing this and I dont want to say what the rationale is as it may skew your results

YANBU.

I would have done it with dc2, and dc3 in a few months time, if I lived closer to London and knew I could commit to the time over the course of several years.

The thing about being part of a study is that your child will be paid very close attention to. (I speak as a cancer patient - you get exemplary care and attention).

If people don't stick their necks out and engage in studies then how will we ever learn anything?

YANBU I would have loved to take part but wasn't eligible (not EBF).

Good for you!

Both my kids have allergies. I ebf to 6 months and then weaned, but my kids allergies both manifested at around 3 months. They were reacting to the proteins in my breastmilk.

If I had known about this study I would have taken part with DC2 as following the guidelines made bugger all difference to DS's multiple allergies.

My son has a life-threatening allergy, were we to have more kids, I would walk over hot rocks to get them to take part in this kind of study. This is not experimental science, it's the final stages of work that has been going on for years, the hypotheses, principles etc have all been worked on in labs and the process that has to be gone through to get to the 'trials' stage is very rigorous.

It's at a slight tangent but it's thanks to other parents who were prepared to put their children through Dr Clarke's peanut trials that there is a possibility that when my son grows up and inevitably goes out for a curry with his mates and it transpires it's contaminated with nuts, he'll live to tell the tale. I figure if I'm prepared to take the benefits of these things, I should be equally prepared to put something back as well...if I were going to have more kids I'd apply this logic to the EAT study.

I don't think it's unethical, reckless, barking or any of those other words people use, nor am I a sock-puppet.

Jareth Have you done your homework yet?