can i give kraft peanut butter to my 71/2 month baby

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Jodi - posted on 02/01/2013

25,928

36

3891

" It's a shame that you can't stick to the debate and have to lower yourself to name-calling, you don't do yourself any favors as by showing your frustration you confirm to us what we suspected all along; that you're well out of your depth in this particular discussion."

^^^ See, you started it. I didn't call you any names.

Jodi - posted on 02/01/2013

25,928

36

3891

"Stop trying to act all innocent, you go around attacking people from thread to thread, you have a reputation for doing so on this forum."

And I must ask, if you are so new, how would you even know what my reputation is? You are taking the word of one lady in this thread who has 66 posts? I actually go around and give helpful advice, and I also disagree with some advice. I will absolutely speak out if I think someone has given bad advice. I believe it is bad advice to tell people not to vaccinate, because the science doesn't support that. Unless you read EVERY thread on CoM, and have been here for 4 years, you cannot possibly know my "reputation" and it is rude of you to continue the personal attacks. I think you need to figure out the difference between attacking the argument and attacking the person. And I would thank you to stop attacking me.

Jodi - posted on 02/01/2013

25,928

36

3891

"Let's try to keep it to science and facts from now on"
"Please start to focus on the ball rather than the person."

Believe it or not, I AM focused on the "ball". In good science, no matter how it appears (i.e. HRT correlates with coronary heart disease), it doesn't mean it is the cause. That is FACT. I wasn't the one who started to focus on the person. I just simply don't see accurate science in your debate.

It is also FACT that all of those correlations you listed, identified in different studies, with different variables, and different controls, don't mean that it is the cause. More study is needed, with the appropriate controls and variables, to determine that.

Studies have actually shown the opposite too, that there is NO evidence that early introduction of peanuts has any bearing on peanut allergy incidence. How does that factor into your theory? Or do you choose to completely ignore that information?

And just for the record, I don't "work" here. And if you look at big picture, YOU were the one who started the drama by posting wild claims of conspiracy theories in every vaccine debate you could find.

Lucy - posted on 02/01/2013

149

0

4

@ Jodi

Stop trying to act all innocent, you go around attacking people from thread to thread, you have a reputation for doing so on this forum. It's only natural that people will defend themselves against you.

The correlation/causation has already been explained, there's more than enough information available to show that peanut oil in vaccines is causing the peanut allergies. One wouldn't have to be qualified in statistics to see that.

When the pharmaceuticals claim that their vaccines reduced the incidence of Polio and Measles, you accept it, you don't go around saying "correlation is not causation". The reality is that those illnesses had already decreased before the mass vaccinations, which have now taken false credit.

You appear to be someone who's paid to be here and paid to troll people to get the forum going, hence your priority is not real science or truth, but rather to annoy people and use any technique possible to make them reply to you and stimulate some drama, which ultimately makes the forum more popular with the extra activity.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

50 Comments

View replies by

Dove - posted on 03/22/2013

5,584

0

1336

And your first post is to bump up a month old post to call women out?

People get heated. We are women... and hormones and attitudes (and 'rough' personalities) get the better of us sometimes... some more often than not. Doesn't mean there isn't a LOT of kind, helpful, supportive advice here. Get a million women in one room, so to speak, and there will always be SOME drama.... but if that's the only thing you focus on you will miss all the good stuff that's here too.

Glenda - posted on 03/22/2013

1

0

0

So I get on this website to see if I can give my grandson can eat peanut butter at a year old. And all I see is bunch of women and mothers being mean to each other and attacking each other. I came on here to get advice from other women...............It sad but I a not sure I would want any advice from anyone that can get on a website and be so mean. Do you women even know each other outside of this website? DRAMA is what they call this not advie for other mothers.
Have a good day.

Katy - posted on 02/28/2013

1

0

0

What age is best to start on stage 2 foods my baby 6 half months he seems happy on the food on but fussy at the moment as has a tooth coming through he on 3 meals a day but only has half jars ?

Dove - posted on 02/01/2013

5,584

0

1336

She doesn't WORK here.... and if all you have seen is her creating drama.... you haven't been around long enough to know crap.

Lucy - posted on 02/01/2013

149

0

4

"44 posts to your name, no picture, and YOU started the issue on this post.

vs.

Almost 20,000 posts, been around and well liked for years, moderates on several boards...."

@ Dove

You've highlighted my point here, Jodi works here and it's her job to stimulate debate, her priority is not science or truth, but to stimulate debate in the forum. One of the best techniques for this is to create drama, which is guaranteed to occur whenever Jodi shows up in a thread. Let's try to keep it to science and facts from now on

@ Jodi

Please start to focus on the ball rather than the person.

Dove - posted on 02/01/2013

5,584

0

1336

44 posts to your name, no picture, and YOU started the issue on this post.

vs.

Almost 20,000 posts, been around and well liked for years, moderates on several boards....


WHO is the troll here? Pot... meet kettle. lol

Dove - posted on 02/01/2013

5,584

0

1336

Jodi is awesome. And no, I don't have anything else to add to the conversation. I just think it's ridiculous the way certain posters are 'ganging up' on one poster simply because you don't agree.... and then accusing that one poster of doing the same thing that the other posters are doing.

Jodi - posted on 02/01/2013

25,928

36

3891

"@Jodi I guess you didn't read my comment? I have noticed you only address part of peoples thread it leads me to believe that you don't really read what everyone has to say. "

No, you guessed wrong. I read your full post. I just chose not to address the rest of your post because I have already addressed that in this thread. I didn't feel the need to repeat myself.

And as I asked earlier, what do you have to contribute to the discussion, or are you just here to tear others down too? Because so far, your entire two posts in this discussion have had the sole purpose of exactly that. Not to debate my point of view, but to tear me down personally. Which I actually couldn't give a fuck about, but hey, don't go making accusations of people when you are doing exactly the same thing.

"You have ignored my explanation, now your banging on about the Correlation/Causation which has already been explained. Either you didn't understand the point or you are just not interested."

Actually, I did not ignore your point. I simply don't agree with it because you don't appear to understand that all the correlations in the world don't mean that it is an absolute cause. Correlations of epidiomological data (which is what you are referring to) are merely a fantastic trigger for further investigation of possibilities and probabilities. How many times do I have to point that out? So far, you can't seem to acknowledge that, so I actually question your science background.

I am not disagreeing that there is correlation. I am disagreeing that this means it is a cause.

Cecilia - posted on 01/31/2013

1,380

16

425

ok to clear up the correlation vs causation thing. As pirate population started to diminish in the 1800's, the rate of global warming rose. Yes, they happened at the same time at almost the perfect rate. So does this mean that pirates kept global warming from happening(causation) or did it just happen to occur at the same time (correlation) ?

Lucy - posted on 01/31/2013

149

0

4

Jodi,

You have ignored my explanation, now your banging on about the Correlation/Causation which has already been explained. Either you didn't understand the point or you are just not interested.

There's enough information and links posted here already for the posters to research and make up their own minds, so I won't repeat what I've already posted.

Feah - posted on 01/31/2013

66

0

21

@Jodi I guess you didn't read my comment? I have noticed you only address part of peoples thread it leads me to believe that you don't really read what everyone has to say. The thing about debating that you may not understand is one is supposed to respect other opinions.Devaluing people to make your argument seem better and correct is wrong. I wish I could hide comments because I am tired of seeing you disrespect other members of circle of moms, we are all here for support and you are tearing it down and making it hostile.

Jodi - posted on 01/31/2013

25,928

36

3891

"@Jodi why is it in every thread I see you in you are arguing? Are you here to fight with everyone?"

It's not arguing. It's called debating. Anyone on these boards is entitled to debate an opinion. And when I see someone spreading such radical propoganda, I will step in and put forward the alternative debate, because I have that right, just as the radicals have the total right to put forward their argument. Especially when she is spreading this propoganda on every vaccination thread she can find in various communities.

Why do you ask? Did you have something to contribute?

And Lucy, you are still failing to understand the issue of this being a correlation. JUST BECAUSE all of these things correlate and relate, it does NOT mean it is a cause. The only way to actually claim that it is proven is to do actual studies on the matter. They are still only correlations. Sure, correlations that present a strong case to investigate further and do studies, but it is not PROOF of causation.

Correlations don't mean causation also applies to correlations that actually makes sense, not just sharks and ice cream correlations. That is actually quite a naive understanding of the issue.

I give you an example. Some years ago, the use of Hormone Replacement Therapy was correlated to high rates of heart attack. This actually makes sense, right? So they used these statistics that make sense to actually do some targeted longitudinal studies, not just correlation of statistics. It turns out that it actually REDUCED coronary heart disease. Instead, they believe it was a socio-economic issue rather than the HRT. Correlations are a fantastic way to find the things we SHOULD investigate further. But it doesn't mean it is evidence of anything.

Cecilia - posted on 01/30/2013

1,380

16

425

"To help prevent food allergies, parents were once told to avoid feeding young children eggs, fish and peanut butter. Today, however, researchers say there's no convincing evidence that avoiding these foods during early childhood will help prevent food allergies"
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/healthy...

By actually not feeding them solids and holding off does seem to cause allergies.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/AllergyImmun...

I know my mom fed me eggs from 3 months on. The only things i would eat for the first year of life-eggs, rice and goat's milk (because of a milk allergy and they didnt make soy formula back in the day)

so go ahead and feed it to them. Have bendryl on hand in case of an allergy. I'd avoid chunky because s/he might choke.

Dove - posted on 01/30/2013

5,584

0

1336

All this from one lady asking if it's alright to give her 7.5 month old peanut butter....?

Okie dokie then.

Joni - posted on 01/30/2013

85

0

1

Jodi,
Explain this one how can a child be perfectly fine then when the go and get their booster vaccines before they enter school all of a sudden they start seizing?
Next thing the parents find out the child all of a sudden have autism?
Tell me vaccines don't cause autism!
Bull...t!
It has happened to several children.
Its sad when their is so many people like you who believe everything the pharmaceiutical company says.
You also know how the immune system so what you've done lots of studies on mulitiple people because not everyones immune system is the same! Have you ever went to the cdc website and read some of the ingredience that's put into the vaccines?
Even vets have enough knowledge to wait to vaccinate animals.
I will agree with you on one thing you are entitled to have your own opion even if I don't agree with you.
When you get time to do more of your researching why don't you read how in italy they ruled that vaccines did cause autism in a child. Read on the argument side of the stories and not just the opposing side.

Feah - posted on 01/30/2013

66

0

21

Yes BUT they can develop peanut allergies from early introduction. Fun fact! It is rare to be truly allergic to the peanuts we are allergic to Cockroaches parts in the peanuts. They are impossible to remove because they are with the peanuts during growth! :D

@Jodi why is it in every thread I see you in you are arguing? Are you here to fight with everyone?

Lucy - posted on 01/30/2013

149

0

4

Jodi "And just for the record, most of those links you put up are not proof of anything, but instead clearly state further study is needed in order to determine the outcome."

In brief, let's take a look at the facts

- Peanut allergies were rare
- Peanut oil was added to vaccines
- Peanut allergies rise rapidly
- An allergy is an immune response, a vaccine tinkers with the immune system
- The unvaccinated such as the Amish do not suffer from peanut allergies (or Autism)
- No peanut oil in Israeli vaccines, low rates of peanut allergy in Israel.
- Sesame oil used in Israeli vaccines, high rates of sesame allergy in Israel.

This is not a 'Correlation does not equal Causation' case, such as ice cream sales going up the same time as shark attacks (where there there is clearly no causation between the two). As you can see from the information above there is a cause here, it's right in front of your eyes. Only the indoctrinated will not accept that. Vaccines are your religion and you don't want to know anything bad about them.

With all this evidence, you want to wait around for the Pharmaceutical controlled CDC, FDA and WHO to come up with a study which will dramatically decrease their vaccine sales while causing an huge increase in compensation payouts. You really think they're going to fund and permit the study? Please stop being naive Jodi, you have to start understanding that not every person is out to protect you and your children, they have their own agendas and priorities. These companies care about profits, they spend most of their money on marketing and lobbying, and a smaller percentage on 'research'. Unfortunately their 'research' might as well be 'Marketing' as that's all it ever is. Independent not for profit research is what's needed without the risk of having the pharmaceuticals smear your reputation for having lost them $Millions in sales.

Lucy - posted on 01/30/2013

149

0

4

Jodi "*sigh* ok, Lucy, whatever. You just carry on. I don't have the time to sit here and debate you, to be quite honest. I will continue to carry on educating your children instead ;) "

You do seem to have plenty of time

Jodi - posted on 01/30/2013

25,928

36

3891

And just for the record, most of those links you put up are not proof of anything, but instead clearly state further study is needed in order to determine the outcome. It actually backs up my point that much of what you have presented is actually based on correlations, which do not equal causation. Further research is required. It is absolutely your right to make your own determination that you have the OPINION that you think it's a problem. That is your considered opinion. But you don't have the right to tell people that it is PROVEN to be the case that it CAUSES allergies. Because that simply isn't the case. The jury is actually still out on that. MY point has been that there is no PROOF. It is NOT evidence or proof. It is correlation. You have no research (other than these correlational studies) to back you up.

So while we are on the road to condescension, the purpose of correlational studies (which is what you are using to back up your opinion and clearly have little understanding), is to form ideas on which direction to take the research. Correlations have indicated that "perhaps" the issue of allergies and vaccine should be further researched. But that doesn't prove anything. it is not evidence that vaccines CAUSE anything. It is merely evidence that there may or may not be a risk factor and it should be explored in the future in the endeavour to find resolutions to these problems.

Anyway, I'm done. I hope your cause serves you well.

Jodi - posted on 01/30/2013

25,928

36

3891

*sigh* ok, Lucy, whatever. You just carry on. I don't have the time to sit here and debate you, to be quite honest. I will continue to carry on educating your children instead ;)

Lucy - posted on 01/30/2013

149

0

4

Jodi "I have plenty of readily available evidence to state that exposing children to allergins early is LESS likely to result in an allergy"

You're getting confused between exposing a person to an allergen and injecting someone with an allergen.

Jodi "And just for the record, I know how the immune system works ;)"

What you've just said betrays you, as you've made it clear that you believe that being injected with an allergen at an early age will make a child less likely to form an allergy, showing a complete lack of understanding of vaccination. You don't seem to realize that an allergic reaction is when a person's immune system reacts.

Jodi "And please, if you think you are so right about the peanut oil causing allergies in infants, then by all means, feel free to post some evidence from medical experts and I will take my time to read it."

This is actually very basic science, but they keep it from us as they don't want to put people off vaccines or claim for compensation. The Pharmaceuticals only fund research which will be profitable for them; they are not ones to shoot their own feet.

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/peanut_aller...
http://www.ourfullhouse.com/49-health/73...
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/the-peanu...
http://ddrblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/...
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/allergies...

Lucy - posted on 01/30/2013

149

0

4

Jodi "And no, I don't think anyone who believes differently to me has a serious problem. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. Fine. But the OP has a right to both sides of the debate, not just yours."

You don't believe that, your action of using ad-hominem attacks proves that you only want one side of the debate to be allowed here.

Jodi "I do, however, think anyone who comes up with conspiracy theories like how the pharmaceuticals are injecting people deliberately with aids and cancer causing viruses, and the like, in order to make money, and getting away with it because the government knows about it and encourages it because they get paid to shut up has a serious problem."

So we have to ignore all of the evidence including Bayer's own documents and the words of the former head of Merck's vaccine division, all because it doesn't fit into your world view. It would make you feel negative stop researching to protect your delicate feelings.

Jodi "That's an entirely different thing. Anyone who believes the government would truly do that to a vast majority of its population deliberately and knowingly is clearly a whackjob."

You prefer blind trust? The truth is Jodi that you live in fear, the information I've posted scares you and instead of researching it further your defense mechanisms are trying to shut it off and close down the discussion in an attempt to protect your fragile world view.

You need to try to be sincere and open-minded when viewing new information, as much as your instincts make you want to reject the information which contradicts your world view. Focus not on belief but on scientific fact and empirical evidence.

Jodi - posted on 01/29/2013

25,928

36

3891

And please, if you think you are so right about the peanut oil causing allergies in infants, then by all means, feel free to post some evidence from medical experts and I will take my time to read it. I have plenty of readily available evidence to state that exposing children to allergins early is LESS likely to result in an allergy, but by all means, I invite you to prove otherwise to me.

And just for the record, I know how the immune system works ;)

Jodi - posted on 01/29/2013

25,928

36

3891

Just killing time, Joni, just killing time. I could ask you the same question.

And no, I don't think anyone who believes differently to me has a serious problem. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. Fine. But the OP has a right to both sides of the debate, not just yours.

I do, however, think anyone who comes up with conspiracy theories like how the pharmaceuticals are injecting people deliberately with aids and cancer causing viruses, and the like, in order to make money, and getting away with it because the government knows about it and encourages it because they get paid to shut up has a serious problem. That's an entirely different thing. Anyone who believes the government would truly do that to a vast majority of its population deliberately and knowingly is clearly a whackjob.

But I see the two of you are clearly medical experts, so by all means carry on. Just make sure you also homeschool your kids, because the government is brainwashing them ;)

Joni - posted on 01/29/2013

85

0

1

Jodi,
With all of your knowledge why do you waste your time on this site? You should be out there helping educate moms about vaccines,allergies,and hell even the gun lobby.
How is it that all your reseach is accurate and everyone elses is bull?
Wow!

Lucy - posted on 01/29/2013

149

0

4

Why is it that we all understand process of immunization so well

i.e. our body creates antibodies to the killed virus

Yet we don't think to ourselves

"If we're creating antibodies to one part of the vaccine then will we also create antibodies to other parts of the vaccine?"

The stronger the person's immune system the more parts of the vaccine it will create antibodies to, so those people who go down with Diabetes Type 1, MS, Peanut Allergies etc will be the ones who had the strongest immune systems.

It's not all bad news though, vaccine immunity doesn't tend to last a lifetime. It's well know that in certain cases 'Booster Shots' are required, as with Tetanus for example. So, if a vaccine has created an autoimmune disorder in a person's body, meaning they have antibodies to part of their own body, or if a vaccine has created an allergy to an everyday substance, maybe the antibodies will last 10 years, perhaps 20, but they should come to an end at some point in your life; as vaccine-induced immunity is not lifelong immunity. This will only be relevant if the person stops vaccinating, otherwise they're likely to get a booster for their autoimmune disease or allergy from a vaccination.

Lucy - posted on 01/29/2013

149

0

4

Jodi "The American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology has been unable to find any evidence in any medical literature that there is peanut oil in vaccines."

You mean one person from the AAAAI couldn't find evidence in through a few quick Google searches. Allow me to explain, adjuvants are often trade secrets, they allow one Pharmaceutical to have a more effective vaccine than another. Pharmaceuticals compete against each other, just like Coca Cola and Pepsi do. However, it's very difficult for them to keep what they're doing completely secret, as there are a lot of studies available which have details of what they've been up. The peanut allergies started up the same time as Merck produced the adjuvant 65-4 which contained up to 65 percent peanut oil plus Arlasel A, aluminum stearate. During the 70s and 80s peanut oil became a common practice and ingredient in vaccines. Coincidentally, peanut allergies began rising exponentially in children as more vaccines were administered.

Lucy - posted on 01/29/2013

149

0

4

Jodi "Really, Lucy. Now vaccines cause SIDS, AIDS, Cancer and peanut allergies. You have a serious problem lady."

Well Jodi, it seems like you're the vaccine expert in the room and anyone who believes differently to you has a 'serious problem'. It's a shame that you can't stick to the debate and have to lower yourself to name-calling, you don't do yourself any favors as by showing your frustration you confirm to us what we suspected all along; that you're well out of your depth in this particular discussion. Time to grow up!

Jodi - posted on 01/29/2013

25,928

36

3891

Really, Lucy. Now vaccines cause SIDS, AIDS, Cancer and peanut allergies? You have a serious problem lady.

The American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology has been unable to find any evidence in any medical literature that there is peanut oil in vaccines. You are merely being incited in your views on this by online forums and anti-vaccination movements who, like the gun lobby, will manipulate anything in order to have their message heard, even if it isn't true. I'm all for doing your own research, but at least make sure your research is legitimate.

Lucy - posted on 01/28/2013

149

0

4

The peanut allergies come from vaccines, they use peanut oil inside them, sometimes people develop immunity to it. In Israel they use sesame oil in their vaccines, people in Israel don't have peanut allergies, instead they have sesame allergies.

Jodi - posted on 01/27/2013

25,928

36

3891

Joni, the AAP changed its stance on the issue in 2008, and admitted that they actually never had any evidence to support the original advice anyway. Sounds like your pediatrician is still using outdated information.

"Although solid foods should not be introduced before 4 to 6 months of age, there is no current convincing evidence that delaying their introduction beyond this period has a significant protective effect on the development of atopic disease regardless of whether infants are fed cow milk protein formula or human milk. This includes delaying the introduction of foods that are considered to be highly allergic, such as fish, eggs, and foods containing peanut protein."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/co...

Also, here is a link to the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, which states that:

"There is little evidence that delaying the introduction of complementary solid foods
beyond 6 months reduces the risk of allergy.
There have been some suggestions that delaying introduction of foods may actually
increase (rather than decrease) allergy, however at this stage this is not proven.
There is insufficient evidence to support previous advice to specifically delay or
avoid potentially allergenic foods (such as egg, peanuts, nuts, wheat, cow’s milk
and fish) for the prevention of food allergy or eczema. This also applies to infants
with siblings who already have allergies to these foods."
http://www.allergy.org.au/health-profess...

Joni - posted on 01/27/2013

85

0

1

His guideline says to delay all dairy products until 1,delay eggs until 2 and delay peanuts,nuts,and fish until age 3.
I was wrong I thought it said delay peanuts until age 2.

Joni - posted on 01/27/2013

85

0

1

Jodi,
Don't know where you are from but here in the U.S. they give guidelines to go by to help reduces the chances of babies developing food allergies.
I have 3 children and my youngest is only 15 months old and I have been given the same guidelines for him by his pediatrican.
Also they have the same guidelines on baby center UK website.
However I would like to know where you read that delaying foods wouldn't make a diffrance on rather or not they would be allergic to it. If that's the case my little man is missing out! Lol.

Jodi - posted on 01/27/2013

25,928

36

3891

Oh, we have both (we call it jam), but not generally together......peanut butter isn't quite the national food it is for you guys. We like our vegemite :P In fact vegemite is more likely to be baby's first spread on toast.

Dove - posted on 01/27/2013

5,584

0

1336

At 7.5 months I probably wouldn't. All my kids were eating it around 11-12 months though.

We have no history of food allergies in our family and I ate peanut products all throughout pregnancy and breastfeeding with no problems, so I figured it was probably safe. Just a tiny bit to start with and wait a few days to be safe.

Jodi - posted on 01/27/2013

25,928

36

3891

That's false information Joni. Research has shown that there is no evidence at all that feeding something to a child later will prevent allergies.

Joni - posted on 01/27/2013

85

0

1

I wouldn't give any peanut butter or any type of nuts to my children until 2 yrs old due to possiable allergies. Not only because there is a chance they could have been alergic to it but if give certain foods too soon they could become allergic to whatever it was they got. I wouldn't chance it. My mil gave my oldest son strawberry fruit bars when he was about 7 months old when she was his sitter and I could never figure out why he was breaking out on his face and butt. One day she came over when he was about 2 and I decide to give him one and I was excited because I thought he had never had strawberries before of course she told me diffrant within the hour his face became rashy and he got kinda hyper. I was so disappointed because back when he was 7 months we started all over introducing all the foods over again,changed lotion,body wash,and detergant. I didn't ever get it figured out until he was 2 and she told me about giving him the strawberries at such an early age. I'm sad to say to this day he still can't consume strawberries. Its better to follow the age guidelines when giving things that children could be or easily become allergic too and a lot of foods may have tracies of nuts. My motto better safe than sorry. Its not advised to give a infant that young antihistamine its for children 2+ unless your childs ped advisies it.
I WOULD NOT TAKE THE CHANCE ITS NOT WORTH IT!
Their is plenty of other new foods to give you baby that's safe.
Good luck and best wishes!

Jodi - posted on 01/25/2013

25,928

36

3891

Fair enough. I simply don't see a scraping on a piece of toast or a little bit in the mouth is an issue. But maybe my idea of peanut butter is different to yours. I mean, you guys slather gallons of peanut butter on everything (heck, you even eat it in sandwiches with "jelly", ew). Here, we don't do that, it is merely used as a condiment not a food group :)

Lakota - posted on 01/25/2013

710

0

192

I work in the medical field and unfortunatly witnessed an 8 month old little boy choke on a bite of cracker that had peanut butter on it. He swallow it, it stuck to the back of his throat, he choked, and died. I just wouldn't risk it.

Jodi - posted on 01/25/2013

25,928

36

3891

How is a tiny little amount on the tongue a choking hazard? Or a small amount on a piece of toast?

Lakota - posted on 01/25/2013

710

0

192

Absolutely not! It's not just because of possible food allergies. It is because it's a choking hazard if your baby can't swallow it properly. It's a thick paste and won't coming up using any medical procedure in case there is choking. Don't do it.

Jodi - posted on 01/25/2013

25,928

36

3891

To help prevent food allergies, parents were once told to avoid feeding young children peanut butter. However, researchers say there's no convincing evidence that avoiding it will help prevent food allergies. If you have any close relatives with a food allergy, you should wait, but otherwise, just try the tiniest little bit, and make sure you have an antihistamine available just in case there is a reaction.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms