|
[ Pregnancy and Infants' Illness Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
Caesareans 'double' food allergy risk
by ROBIN YAPP, Daily Mail
08:08am 21st October 2004
Food for thought: Caesareans double allergy risk
Babies delivered by Caesarean section are at more than twice the risk of developing food allergies than children born naturally, experts have warned.
They are also significantly more likely to suffer diarrhoea and may be at increased danger of asthma later in life.
Researchers say this is because, unlike babies born naturally, they do not acquire beneficial bacteria as they pass down the birth canal that help protect them against disease.
Look here too...Skip gossip links to more articles Advice: Worried about a Caesarean? Ask Dr Rosemary Leonard
Report: Air fresheners harm mother and baby
Diet: Chubby moggy slims on the Catkins diet
Story: Conveyor belt of illegal abortions
Tools: Try our ovulation calendar
The findings, from Ludwig-Maximillians University in Munich, come at a time when Caesarean rates are at record levels, accounting for more than one in five births in the UK.
Childbirth experts fear the operation has been glamorised by celebrity mothers such as Victoria Beckham, Elizabeth Hurley and Claudia Schiffer.
Mary Newburn, of the National Childbirth Trust, said women should avoid Caesareans unless it was a medical necessity. She added that inexperienced doctors who may fear being sued if things go wrong are too quick to recommend them.
Caesarean levels too high
"We should take this evidence very seriously and make every effort to give women the best possible chance of a straightforward, normal birth because Caesareans should really be at a much lower level," she said.
"But the changes in maternity services don't make you feel confident that we have a grip on the problem.
"There are lots of young obstetricians and less experienced midwives and they tend to err on the side of caution and go for a Caesarean - but they are not considering the long-term consequences."
In the study, researchers looked at 865 full-term babies who had been fed solely on breast milk until the age of four months. Around one in six of them, or 17 per cent, had been delivered by Caesarean section.
They assessed the babies' health and response to any food allergens at one, four, eight and 12 months.
They also took blood samples from them at 12 months in order to confirm any suspected allergies reported by parents. The results showed that babies born by Caesarean were 46 per cent more likely to suffer diarrhoea than those delivered naturally and 106 per cent more likely to have a food allergy. Researchers found that the most common food allergy was to eggs.
Asthma link
Previous research has suggested that children who react to eggs are more likely to go on to develop asthma. Dr Sibylle Koletzko, who led the study published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, said: 'We found a remarkably higher rate of sensitisation to food allergens in infants born by Caesarean section.
"Allergy to eggs, which was the main allergen in our study, has been shown to be positively associated with the later development of asthma.
"But it is uncertain whether our findings also indicate such a long-term effect as the children were too young."
Researchers believe that children born naturally acquire bacteria from the mother that colonise their gut and help it to function normally. But babies delivered by Caesarean miss out on this pro-cess and are instead exposed to bacteria in the hospital environment at the start of their lives.
The World Health Organisation recommends that no more than 15 per cent of births should be by Caesarean. But the figure in the UK is now 22 per cent - up from just 12 per cent in 1990.
In some hospitals dealing with "high-risk" births, the figure has reached 65 per cent and it is as high as one-third in some general hospitals.
This had led to claims that some mothers now consider themselves "too posh to push".
In Reply to: Caesareans & Food Allergy? posted by Aston [31.829] on October 21, 2004 at 21:07:28:
Too bad people do c-sections for "convience". I had to have one with my 3rd son after 2 totally natural births (at home). My youngest was completely sideways. My midwife turned him 4 times and he turned back to the goofy position within hours to minutes each time. After 24 hours of labor, he persisted in his sideways position and I had to have a c-section. I was bummed!
In Reply to: Caesareans & Food Allergy? posted by Aston [31.829] on October 21, 2004 at 21:07:28:
Thanks, Aston.
Another "Whoops Factor".
Walt
In Reply to: Caesareans & Food Allergy? posted by Aston [31.829] on October 21, 2004 at 21:07:28:
I want to see these sources cited. It is unclear from what you posted whether the study on the effect of delivery method on future allergy development controlled for breastfeeding. I have no doubt that mothers who home birth/vaginal delivery also are statistically much more likely to breast feed AND breast feed exclusively and for a longer period of time. I can much more readily believe it is the breast milk, not delivery method, that impacts future health. And if the study did not control for that, you will see an association, but not a cause and effect. It is a pet peeve of mine for people to mistake associations for cause and effect, but they do it all the time, in print, and with an air of authority. It's one of the things I hate most about the media.
If this connection is tenuous, or if this research was funded/done by a biased group, it will hurt the credibility of the fight against unnecessary c-sections, not help it. Many c-sections are done purely for liability avoidance, not medical necessity. Unfortunately the pickle our legal system and its lawsuit-happy lawyer/client alliance has gotten our OBs into is forcing doctors to err on the side of surgical intervention. This trend will not be reversed by weak studies showing health connections such as this allergy one. The problem will not go away until our system is changed to protect doctors from financial destruction when things go bad during a vaginal delivery. It is my opinion that this is where the focus needs to be.
I am not arguing that it is possible a vaginal birth can innoculate the infant with bacteria and get him started on a strong immune system, but since the breastfeeding connection in this matter is so strong, and so proven, I would rather see energy directed toward addressing the cause of OBs leaving obstetrics in droves, and when they do stay, opting for c-sections way too soon and too often, then spending energy trying to prove a vaginal birth results in fewer allergies.
On the other hand, since women seem to be seduced by the C-section craze, I suppose information like this may help the public reconsider being led down the surgical delivery path, and try for a natural birth if possible. Unfortunately, unless you are willing to work with a midwife, many of whom operate illegally, you are unlikely to escape conventional medicine's pressure. How many women, in the thick of labor, can resist a suggestion to "be on the safe side" and take the baby now instead of giving it a few more hours try?
We need a paradigm shift - again. As long as we are in the grip of conventional medicine's educational, practitional, financial, regulational and legal grip, going back to natural delivery preference will be a long time coming, if ever. Childbirth used to be the realm of women and women - the woman and her midwife - until taken over by a male dominated obstetrical industry. Now you are in the hands of your doctor, your insurance company, and the lawyers waiting like vultures to exploit any of mother nature's oopsies.
The sad truth is that sometimes in nature, bad stuff happens, and when you allow insurance to pay your medical bills and the law to regulate liability, you're going to be at the mercy of unnecessary defensive c-sections. Find a midwife and pay her under the counter if you don't want c-section pressure, or if you're lucky, you can find an aboveboard right-minded OB or midwifery clinic. Expect it to be eventually sued out of existance however.
Thank you for posting this, Aston, I needed a good rant. :-))
|
[ Pregnancy and Infants' Illness Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |