4 ms·
DO NOT FEED YOUR INFANT HONEY Just in case anyone read the first paragraph and thought, "Hey that's a good idea!" Honey contains bacteria that causes infant bo
by radicaledward 12y ago
DO NOT FEED YOUR INFANT HONEY
Just in case anyone read the first paragraph and thought, "Hey that's a good idea!" Honey contains bacteria that causes infant botulism [1]. Once a child has a more fully developed digestive system, this is no longer a problem.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism#Infant_botulism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism#Infant_botulism
- DanBC 12y agoBotulism is one risk from honey, and it's a good reason to avoid it until the child is a year old. It's also mostly sugar and thus is not needed by tiny children. Avoiding it is probably a good idea for tooth health. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/foods-to-avoid-baby.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/foods-... "English teeth" is a bit of banter, but it's true. Tooth removal is the main reason to hospitalise (primary school age (4 to 11)) children. One in four children at five years old had some decay. Being strict with sugar - especially in drinks - and proper toothbrushing will reduce this. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Dental-decay/Pages/Introduction.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Dental-decay/Pages/Introduction... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10964323/Tooth-decay-is-the-biggest-cause-of-primary-school-children-being-hospitalised.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10964323/Tooth-...
- r00fus 12y agoHoney is a natural expectorant, however - used in cough drops like certain Ricola flavors, so assuming your child is > 1 year old, it's actually beneficial to administer occasionally.
- DanBC 12y agoYes, the careful use of honey is beneficial in some situations. I'm not suggesting that all sugars should be excluded from a child's diet. I've also seen honey used in burn dressings which was fascinating. Also grusome.
- spikels 12y agoJust to be clear - the story in the first paragraph is about royal jelly not honey. Royal jelly a totally different thing than honey: a bee glandular secretion rather than bee processed plant nectar [1]. However I doubt it should be given to infants either and would not base any health decisions on anecdotes like this no matter how appealing the narrative. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_jelly http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_jelly
- radicaledward 12y agoI guess I made a couple of assumptions when I wrote my comment. 1) I thought a lot of people wouldn't know the difference. 2) I guessed that royal jelly would be host to a similar spectrum of bacteria to honey. These are possibly not true, but I figured that caution was better than anything else. Thanks for your clarification though!
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago> not base any health decisions on anecdote It's not even an anecdote. It's a "short story by Roald Dahl". You know, fiction from a writer known for his "unsentimental, often very dark humour." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Dahl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Dahl Really, don't base health decisions on surreal horror stories.
- roghummal 12y agoRoyal jelly? +1 str. Would eat any day.
- mentat 12y agoI don't understand how this is the most important thing one can say about this article. No remotely reasonable person would take this as an endorsement of feeding honey (or royal jelly) to an infant.
- smoyer 12y agoI hope no one mistakes Roald Dahl for Doctor Spock.
- radicaledward 12y agoI'm not at the top of comments list am I? I agree that there are definitely more important take aways from this article. However, I felt that it would be worth my while to write this comment to make people aware of the issue.
- mentat 12y agoIt was the top comment when I made this one which was confusing.