EAT study - any thoughts?

[Sleepglorioussleep]

I had a leaflet about babies who are ebf and under three months taking part in a study about allergies and how they develop. Interested in helping so rang up. How they plan to research it is with a randomised controlled study. They divide the babies into two groups, their choice (people running study) who goes where. Group one must be ebf til six months. Group two must have certain foods, Inc cows milk, peanuts introduced into their diet at prescribed times between thirteen and seventeen weeks of age. What do you think of that?

I think it's great - we're on it and are in the early introduction bit. There has been some absolute tosh talked about the study on various forums. I like the fact that DD may well be much less likely to develop allergies in future, I like that we get access to very, very good doctors should the need ever arise, and I like that we get to "do our bit" for research with virtually no inconvenience. I didn't like trying to get her to eat eggs until she eventually decided they might be ok, and trying to disguise tahini is a bit of a pain - but her favourite food is now curry, so even that has turned out well.

But that's just what I think - and taking part will not be for everyone.

Hi goldril can you tell me a bit more about what you have to do? And do you know anything about the other group? What if the baby seems desperate for food? Or if you're in your group and baby seems uninterested in food? Would love to take part but have a few concerns.

I was interested in this but would not want to be randomly assigned to the group which introduces food at 3 months as I feel this is too young. I would not want to wean before 5 months, and hopefully closer to 6. However would also not like to be in the other group in case my dd seems ready to wean earlier than 6 months or if I decide to combination feed.

Unrelated but what does the "E" in "EBF" mean?!

Exclusively! I feel the same-I would be rubbish for the study as couldn't wean "on demand" or equally not wean if my child wanting food.

I think it's great. It's really worth it to systematically study the cause of common allergies. I wanted to join since there aren't many ebf babies in the UK especially going for 6mo. But we were disqualified because of the 50ml of formula my DD was given when she was admitted for jaundice

I was sent a leaflet and I binned it, no way would I let DD2 take part. There are a few threads about this if you want to get more opinions on it, I can't remember off the top of my head what everyone else said.

Here you go :)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/breast_and_bottle_feeding/908385-EAT-Study-WWYD

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/breast_and_bottle_feeding/1147223-EAT-study-anyone-else-taking-part

Lots of info and thoughts on those, hope they help you to make your mind up.

I didn't do it, because when we were sent the leaflet I was still struggling a bit with breastfeeding and didn't want to feel like I couldn't give him formula if I really couldn't cope with breastfeeding any more.

Although I'd imagine that we'd actually be disqualified anyway because, like lilham, my DS had 40ml formula milk at three days old when he still hadn't latched on yet.

The point of the study is to determine whether the government advice about not introducing allergenic foods before six months is the best course of action - there is evidence stacking up that it may not be. Someone has to do the research to base policies on.

I'm a scientist carrying out research in another biological field: I looked into this carefully and am satisfied by the study's protocols and ethics. I have no compulsion to suggest others join the study - it's a very personal decision - but I did find some of the other threads which rubbished the study and the doctors without sensible research or, possibly, understanding to be quite offensive. I particularly disliked the inference that participants were being misled or naive.

What is the "evidence stacking up" please Goldrill? I thought it was merely supposition rather than evidence.

I had concerns with the former links the participating researchers had with baby food companies, which could be a conflict of interest. There also seemed to be insufficient information provided to participants on the other (not allergy related, but other health related) risks of introducing foods other than breastmilk prior to 6 months.

Those would have been my worries.

hi verylittle
Am just off for the weekend but will dig out the stuff I read when I resurface.

My main worries were also about introducing food generally before 6 months. After discussion with the doctors running the study I was sufficiently convinced that no harm was likely to arise that we decided to continue: we did join relatively late which certainly helped that decision. I think she was over 17 weeks before we got the all clear from the allergy tests to start introducing food - and I gathered that 17 weeks was seen as the point when changes to the gut wall would probably be complete.

I did not the researchers' links with baby food companies but most seemed to have been involved in an advisory capacity and I have no problem with that. I have to give advice to people whose industries I dislike/may not approve of to prevent them causing damage to, well, innocent parties - I may not like what they do but I am glad to have reduced their impact and improved their practice. I also find it reasonable that the big companies making baby food will want advice from the leaders in their field when it comes to topics as serious as allergy. But I am aware that that is my "moral/ethical stance" and that others may differ!