I just read an article about egg allergies. Past studies seemed to indicate that the way to prevent allergies developing in children is to avoid early exposure. Yeah. I kind of remember that from when Jack was a baby. There were certain foods we were supposed to avoid giving him until he was of a certain age. I can't really remember the exact ages though. All I remember is you're not supposed to give babies honey until they're a year-old. But that's not for allergies. That's a Botulism issue.
Anyway, now researchers from the University of Melbourne are saying it's the opposite. To avoid allergies to eggs, babies should be introduced to them earlier. Maybe it's just an egg thing? Maybe with eggs you need early exposure to decrease the chance of allergies; and with other risky foods you need a late exposure?
I'm not sure if an increase in egg allergies is a bad thing. I mean it IS bad if a kid has a deadly allergy to eggs. Those allergies are terrifying.
But for the poor little chickens....having lots of people allergic to eggs is probably a really good thing. Most farm chickens are treated quite brutally.
Right now, I'm still in the midst of egg paranoia. There was a major salmonella issue here in the United States. But outside of that, I eat eggs. And I shouldn't be eating eggs. I'm bad. I do sometimes try to cook with egg substitutes. I've baked with apple sauce. That works fairly well. But I don't often enough make the right choices.
If I had an allergy, would I behave better? Would that FORCE me to be more ethical in choosing my food. Maybe? I have my doubts. Unless I had a deadly allergy, I'd probably continue to eat eggs. I'd be contributing to chicken abuse AND self-abuse. That's a depressing thought.
The other thing....
What do we do with all this conflicting scientific evidence? That's why I'm skeptical when doctors and scientists tell us parents that something is safe and healthy for our children. The study today might say that, but then a study five years from now may say the opposite. I think it's unwise to put too much faith in religion. I also think it's unwise to put too much faith in science.
Anyway, now researchers from the University of Melbourne are saying it's the opposite. To avoid allergies to eggs, babies should be introduced to them earlier. Maybe it's just an egg thing? Maybe with eggs you need early exposure to decrease the chance of allergies; and with other risky foods you need a late exposure?
I'm not sure if an increase in egg allergies is a bad thing. I mean it IS bad if a kid has a deadly allergy to eggs. Those allergies are terrifying.
But for the poor little chickens....having lots of people allergic to eggs is probably a really good thing. Most farm chickens are treated quite brutally.
Right now, I'm still in the midst of egg paranoia. There was a major salmonella issue here in the United States. But outside of that, I eat eggs. And I shouldn't be eating eggs. I'm bad. I do sometimes try to cook with egg substitutes. I've baked with apple sauce. That works fairly well. But I don't often enough make the right choices.
If I had an allergy, would I behave better? Would that FORCE me to be more ethical in choosing my food. Maybe? I have my doubts. Unless I had a deadly allergy, I'd probably continue to eat eggs. I'd be contributing to chicken abuse AND self-abuse. That's a depressing thought.
The other thing....
What do we do with all this conflicting scientific evidence? That's why I'm skeptical when doctors and scientists tell us parents that something is safe and healthy for our children. The study today might say that, but then a study five years from now may say the opposite. I think it's unwise to put too much faith in religion. I also think it's unwise to put too much faith in science.
