Evolution of parents:<p>1. first kid - sterilize baby bottle nipples<p>2. second kid - run nipples through the dishwasher<p>3. third kid - rinse nipples under the faucet<p>4. fourth kid - hold out nipples for dog to lick clean
Yup, makes total sense. Let your kids eat a bug or two, play in the dirt, sneeze on each other. Unless you are statistically unlucky, they'll be fine, and they'll build up stronger immune systems, so they won't be as fragile later on. Unless your child is Bubble Boy, there's no need for OCD antiseptic cleanliness.
I am Israeli, lived in America for 1/2 my childhood. My nephew grew up entirely in Israel, and has peanut allergies. Ironically in the context of this article, we didn't find this out until he first had bamba and my sister had to rush him to the hospital. There have been a number of his classmates with the same allergy. Only going by his classmates from nursery school until 8th grade now, the stats don't look so great.<p>Obviously this is anecdotal, but like all things, nothing is 100%. I am not sure what sample size or data was used in these studies, but in just my circle the number of people with peanut allergies that are Israeli is decently large compared to many other people I know. Unfortunately peanut allergies can be pretty annoying, serious, and hard to deal with, so it ends up a big topic of discussion a few times a year in our social circles.
For those that have never had bamba, it truly is a peanut butter cheese doodle that will melt in your mouth. That allows Israeli kids to eat them at a really young age.
Allergies are mostly a North American and European thing aren't they? I had never heard of allergies until I came to the US from my slice of third world hell.
I have a young child at home. He eats bamba, peanut butter, and a worrying amount of New York City dirt.<p>That said, this is such a dangerous article, and I'm honestly surprised the NYT published it. It's written by a non-scientist making a "common sense" claim, and it even closes with a paragraph-long variation on the "how much can we really trust science anyways?" claim.<p>My understanding is that there has been a single study, done among a largely homogenous population, that has indicated Bamba's benefit. Maybe Bamba does help inoculate against peanut allergies -- I think it's plausible, even likely. But it's certainly not anything approaching scientific consensus, the author is not a scientist of any variety, and I think this article has a real danger to mislead.
Is this the future of advertising, a whole 'article' dedicated to a peanut butter coated roasted corn snack, Apple, Amazon, the Jackson Five, talk about product placement. I would have really liked to read an article on the causes of childhood allergies ...
Never seen a French kid with a peanut allergy; they probably exist since most processed foods now have warnings about possible allergens, but they must be quite rare. In France "Nutella" is found in most homes; it's an Italian-made (and quite unhealthy) thick mixture of chocolate paste and crushed peanuts. Kids love it.<p>Also, this formulation is weird:<p>> <i>Nothing is more unnerving than exposing your child to danger for his benefit, be it germs, shots, strangers, allergens or gravity.</i><p>There are things that can kill young kids, they should be avoided at all costs (of course!); these include: guns, swimming pools (being alone at a ~), and, first and foremost, moving cars.<p>But the rest of the "dangers" are GOOD for kids: "germs" are good (let them play in sandpits!), gravity (climbing trees or other structures) is good, being able to talk to strangers IS VERY GOOD because almost all strangers are not rapists and will not harm your kid in any way -- they may save her life!