Babies born via C'sect more likely to have food allergies

[Annie]

I had no idea where I was supposed to post this so decided to post this here. This is in no way an attempt to disrespect anyone who's birthed via c'sect, or anything like that. I have complete and total respect for anyone who gives birth reguardless of how you do it, more power to you!
OK here's the link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6297688/

[lnitti]

I didn't read the article, but I wonder if it is because they don't get the good bacteria that vaginal birth babies get when the pass thru the birth canal?

[stafl]

I would say that it's probably because babies born via c-section are much more likely to be given formula those first few days before mom's milk comes in, and babies born surgically are less likely to be breastfed, too. studies have shown a direct relationship between formula supplementation and food allergies.

[Annie]

the article said it was because of the flora in the gut not having a chance to develope normally. The article never mentioned forumula tho, interesting point.

[Meiri]

There must some confounding factors as Stafl suggested.

Having seen in the Advocacy forum how MSNBC totally reversed the interpretation Of the Researchers of some research on antioxidants in humanmilk, I'm inclined to not trust them as a source anymore for breastfeeding related issues.

[AnnaLaughs]

This is interesting. It has been my thinking all along with DD. I was all but forced into a Csect. because she was breech. Now DD has severe eczema that we discovered is a food allergy (legumes). Very interesting. I also read this somewhere else here on Mothering months ago.....sorry... don't remember where.
Thanks for posting.
By the way, DD was never supplemented and was exclusively. I wouldn't let them take that from me!!

[Pynki]

I have to agree I don't think it's the supplementation.. Everyone I know who has had a c/sec HAS breastfed for at LEAST the 1st 6 weeks.. I think it's because a lot of babies born via c/s (ds1 included) have food allergies because they are born prematurely.. Almost all of them.. We had a c/s for breech as well, and we were supposedly at 38 weeks.. Just barely.. So it's all together possible that he was much younger gestationally than the suspected..

I think THAT is probably the area that needs to be looked into.. They have immature guts.. Which would tend to lead to food allergies..

Warm Squishy Feelings..

Dyan
:Thumb

[Meiri]

I don't know. Of all the babies in my extended family who came by c-section, mostly unplanned--at least for the first babies, only one has real food allergies. All were BF for far longer than 6 weeks. As far as I know none were supplemented.

Granted a sample of 9 is too small for statistic significance.....

Are most c-sections planned with slight prematurity being a possible issue? Maybe there is a difference between the planned versus the emergency but this study doesn't distinguish between the two?

[Meiri]

Okay, read the blurb.

They make no mention of what proportion of each group was breastfed and if that correlated with the allergies. That is a Known factor with allergies and I would consider any such study that did not factor that in to be invalid.

From the discussion here, I would think that the timing of the c-birth would matter too. Were they emergency after labor had started on its own or planned with no knowledge of baby's real readiness to be born. I would think that would make a difference too. Therefor any study that doesn't take that bit of data into account is only preliminary and inconclusive.

And if I'm remembering correctly, one of the functions of breastfeeding is to help babies gut be properly colonized, therefor the route of the birth shouldn't matter if baby is breastfeed.

[Pynki]

Most scheduled c/s are scheduled 2 weeks before EDD to avoid labor altogether.. So.. Prematurity really IS an issue..

Warm Squishy Feelings..

Dyan

[Meiri]

Thanks Dyan. What proportion of c-sections fall into that catagory?

And for that study, what proportion of the caesarians fell into that catagory?

I hate when inconclusive nonsense is published. It just muddies peoples' understandings. Even if the conclusion is one that will encourage people to maybe make a healthier decision, when it's that preliminary, it may be contradicted when a real study is done.

[~*max*~]

Very interesting. My ds, who was born via c-section several days after his due date, has food allergies, dairy being one of them. My other two children were born vaginally & do not have allergies. Ds was exclusively breastfed, never given formula.

Just wanted to share my own example.

[mmace]

Just adding my own examples...

#1 - emergency c-section 10 days after due date, prolapsed umbilical cord, exclusively FF, no known allergies, age 11 now

#2 - c-section 22 days before due date after going into labor, exclusively FF, no known allergies, age 6 now

#3 - scheduled c-section 8 days before due date, exclusively BF, no known allergies, age 22 months now

[MilkOnDemand]

The c-section prevents the normal flora from being picked up on the descent through the birth canal. It has definately been indicated that formula and the early introduction of solids can lead to food allergies. However, the c-section is also another factor that more than this single study have implicated. There are many factors that can predispose a child to developing food allergies, while they can be minimized by exclusive breastfeeding & avoidance in the mother's diet, they can not effectively be eliminated alltogether. A great deal of research has been done in the use of probiotics to help normal bacteria form in the gut, which is proving to reduce the instance and severity of food allergies. THis research is quite promising, and probably goes hand in hand with the bacteria being lost by avoiding the birth canal.

In our situation, I have food allergies so my children were prone to develop them. I exclusively bf my son for 5 months before solid intro - he has no allergies. My daughter I ebf for 8 months, and she is anaphylactic to all nuts, mangoes, and soy. Additionally she is allergic to eggs and has cold urticaria. For us, it was a genetic snaffu....

[thepeach80]

I have SAs and asthma and DH is becoming more and more LI every week it seems. AJ was born via c/s after being induced and has intolerances right now to dairy and soy. We just trialed egg and he seemed to do o.k., but that was a problem for a while. He was bf for 13 mos, but had to be supplemented as well. Evan seems to be sensitive to dairy (from the times I've cheated on my diet) and possible soy. He's my VBAC baby. He gets 1-3 oz bottle of hypo formula before bed.

[heatherdeg]

Originally Posted by Pynki

Most scheduled c/s are scheduled 2 weeks before EDD to avoid labor altogether.. So.. Prematurity really IS an issue..

Warm Squishy Feelings..

Dyan

A baby is considered to be full term if they are born from 36-40 weeks. Anything under 36 weeks is premature, and often Dr.s will consider 35 weeks "close enough", but will track them as a preemie just in case something looks funny. So if your baby was born 3-1/2 weeks before EDD, they're not a preemie.

My c/s was semi-emergency. DS had stopped growing and my blood pressure was so high that they couldn't take a chance on me going into labor because as it was they had me hospitalized for it in case I stroked out or had a heart attack.

DS was fed bm even when he had a feeding tube. I was fortunate to have a hospital and NICU that was EXTREMELY pro-bf... especially for preemies. They had an LC in my room literally an hour after I came back from recovery and even had one there when I wanted to try him at the breast (once he was in step-down nursery).

He is now 13 months old and except for one accidental 2 oz. feeding the day he was coming home, he has never had anything except breastmilk (either nursing or from a bottle) and a few sips of water. (this is partially a feeding issue--we can't get him to use a bottle anymore or a cup).

He has a casein allergy.

BUT... apparently food allergies run in our family--some severe, but most we are just now finding the damage/evidence of in my mother's generation of relatives via research for my son's problems (which are extensive). None of them were born via section and none were preemies. My aunt almost completely lost her hearing before they found out her problem was food allergies as a child.

Interesting though...

[thepeach80]

A baby is considered to be full term if they are born from 36-40 weeks.

Not according to my DR! They wanted me to make it to at least 37 wks to be full term and even 37 wks is a new thing as average gestation is 38-42 wks. If your dates are off and you should really deliver at your 42 wk mark, then delivering at 38 wks instead is premature. I had a long cycle this last time and had I gone by DRs date, it would've been almost 2 wks earlier than it should've been.

[Ruthla]

Also, regardless of when you conceived, some babies just need more time to "cook" than others.

I wonder if babies who are induced are more likely to have allergies as well.

A baby born via c/s at 42 weeks might not be "quite ready yet" if labor would have started naturally a week later. Similarly, labor can start on its own at 37 weeks and the baby could be "fully ripe" by then.

[heatherdeg]

Originally Posted by thepeach80

Not according to my DR! They wanted me to make it to at least 37 wks to be full term and even 37 wks is a new thing as average gestation is 38-42 wks. If your dates are off and you should really deliver at your 42 wk mark, then delivering at 38 wks instead is premature. I had a long cycle this last time and had I gone by DRs date, it would've been almost 2 wks earlier than it should've been.

They always want you to make it as far along as you can. But when your peds are looking at the baby in terms of growth and development, they generally will not adjust for a child born 36+ weeks.

Even children born at term can have problems... I don't mean to imply otherwise. There are babies born at 34 weeks with mature lungs and others born at 38 weeks with bad lungs. It's case-dependent. What I was saying is that when they are investigating problems with a child, they generally won't look for them to be prone to "preemie problems" if they were born at 36+ weeks.