Yesterday we echoed the news: a baby died with 7 months of life, weighing 4.3 kg, because his parents were tremendously irresponsible when feeding your baby, and by not going on any occasion to medical professionals who made a diagnosis of his allergies (if he had them) and his general state of health.
Unfortunately, this same news is circling the net, in many ways, implying that the fault of everything is gluten, or in this case, the absence of it in the diet of Lucas, the baby. However, it is not only a lie, but it is impossible, because no one dies from not eating gluten. That is to say: No, no baby has died (nor will it ever die) from not eating gluten.
But what are the media saying?
A simple search on the internet gives us these so illogical headlines:
- A 7-month-old baby dies because his parents applied a gluten-free diet (La Vanguardia)
- Parents are tried for the death of their baby they fed gluten-free (20 minutes)
- Controversy in Belgium over the death of a non-celiac baby after being fed gluten-free (El Confidencial)
- A baby dies from the gluten-free diet given by his parents (UH News)
- The trial begins for the parents of the seven-month-old Belgian baby who died of a gluten-free diet (ABC)
Given this situation, I first put the word gluten in the headline, before knowing exactly what had happened. Then I wrote the post, assuming that gluten was not to blame, but I kept "gluten" in the headline. As soon as I realized I removed it, because as I explained in the body of the news, if the child was malnourished it was because he never received a suitable adapted milk for his age and his needs, and because the parents' dislike of doctors was such that even when it was serious they preferred to take a car trip for a homeopath to visit, rather than go to a hospital. So, when they finally came to one, Lucas was already dead.
Is it dangerous to eat gluten free?
Gluten is a protein that is part of some cereals, and consequently also of the products derived from them. Cereals that contain gluten are: wheat, rye, barley, spelled, spelled, triticale, farro, kamut, green spelled, bulgur and oatmeal.
Gluten, as a nutrient, does not contribute anything to our body, so if it could be eliminated from these cereals, we would have great health without any risk of deficiencies or anything like that. But you can't, so the current alternative to gluten is consume cereals that do not contain itsuch as corn, rice, quinoa, buckwheat, millet, etc.
The problem is that many of the usual products in our diet: bread, pasta, cookies, pastries, are made with cereals that have gluten, and processed gluten-free substitutes have more sugar and are even more refined than the gluten-free version. This makes them end up being less healthy (as well as more expensive). Thus, the only danger of making a gluten-free diet is to replace food with less healthy ones, instead of increase the consumption of fruits, vegetables and legumes, which would be the most logical.
No, no child has died from not eating gluten
That's why no baby has been able to die from eating gluten-free and that's why no child will ever die for not eating food that does not contain it. You just have to keep this in mind: that the diet is varied and balanced.
Moreover, the current recommendation when introducing gluten into the diet is to be offered after six months, with a single issue to consider: not offering much in the first few days. If a child eats alone, if he does Baby-led Weaning, it is almost impossible to happen. But if cereals are given in porridge, then it can happen.
Gluten can be offered from the age of six months, provided that the first few days do not give a large amount of glutenThe baby of the news was 7 months and weighed 4.3 kg. There is thousands of 7-month-old babies who have not yet tried gluten, and ten years ago they were practically all, because the recommendation at that time was to start with gluten around 7-9 months because it was believed to help reduce the risk of celiac disease.
Then it was seen that no, that what really helped was that it occurred at the same time that the baby was breastfed, and then it began to be said that better after 6 months (and sometimes even before), and that it was given very little by little, giving a low amount every day and increasing from week to week.
And in the end they saw that neither, that breastfeeding and giving it fractionally didn't help at all, so until there is new evidence, the current recommendation is what we have said: give it after six months without going through the first shots. But without anything happening for a child of 7 or more months to be offered for whatever reason, without this entailing any risk to his life, as is logical.
Photos | iStock
In Babies and more | Pediatricians warn of the risk of removing lactose and gluten from the diet without a diagnosis of intolerance, The 17 best gluten-free recipes to make our celiac children happier, Living without gluten: celiac disease and children
