Tag Archives: babies

Vegan Infants: Growing at Comparable Rates to Omnivore Babies

Posted on by
Reply

Meat and dairy products are not essential for a child’s development.

Evgenia Gordeeva/Getty Images

Research indicates that infants born into vegan or vegetarian families may initially have slightly lower birth weights. However, by age two, they typically catch up to their omnivorous peers.

Official dietary guidelines suggest: A well-balanced vegan diet, rich in vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and fortified foods, can satisfy nutritional needs. Nonetheless, ensuring adequate nutrition for children’s growth can be challenging on a vegan diet, due to potential protein and amino acid deficiencies.

Small-scale studies have yielded inconsistent results regarding the advantages and disadvantages of a vegan diet for young children. To address these issues comprehensively, Kerem Avital and researchers from Ben-Gurion University in the Negev, Israel, analyzed data from 1.2 million infants recorded at Israel’s National Family Care Center between 2014 and 2023, monitoring growth parameters such as height, weight, and head circumference during their first two years.

The researchers compared these growth metrics to reported dietary habits of parents when the infants reached around six months old. The majority of families identified as omnivorous, while only 1.2% reported as vegetarian and 0.3% as vegan.

This still reflects approximately 18,000 infants in vegetarian and vegan households. “The size of this study is significant enough that even these small percentages represent a substantial number of children, ensuring statistical reliability,” notes Tomer Avnon, a professor at Tel Aviv University who did not participate in the research.

During the first 60 days after birth, growth measurements such as height, head circumference, and overall development were comparable across all dietary groups. However, infants from vegan households were found to be slightly more likely to be underweight. Conversely, being overweight was rare overall but less common among vegan and vegetarian households.

By the time they reached 2 years of age, developmental benchmarks appeared to converge across all three dietary groups. While growth restriction was more prevalent in vegetarian and vegan families, the differences were minor and not statistically significant. Researchers accounted for various influencing factors, such as income, maternal age, and breastfeeding practices.

“The findings are quite encouraging,” stated Avnon. “It provides robust evidence that children of vegetarian and vegan parents can have healthy developmental trajectories.”

The analysis aligns with medical insights that babies born smaller than average typically “catch up” in their growth later, Avnon added. It should reassure parents that a meat-free diet can support healthy early childhood development, although the researchers point out that dietary habits were self-reported by parents, potentially affecting result accuracy. “This study lacks continuous assessments of children’s actual nutritional intake, an important element in long-term development,” he explains.

Zulfikar Bhutta, a researcher at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada, expressed concerns regarding the minor growth discrepancies noted among the groups. “The subtle differences in growth may have long-term implications, particularly since other studies indicate that vegan diets could lead to lower bone density and micronutrient levels,” he warned.

He encourages caution against assuming that a vegan or vegetarian diet is universally suitable during early childhood, especially in regions where malnutrition is a critical issue.

While the study was conducted in Israel, Avital believes the findings are applicable to countries with similar economic conditions and healthcare access, such as the United Kingdom. Bhutta advocates for larger studies to capture more precise data on dietary habits and parental characteristics.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Gene-Edited Babies: The Future of Genetics, but Not All CRISPR Startups Will Lead the Way

Posted on by
1

Babies Crawling in Diapers

Every Baby Has About 100 New Genetic Mutations

Mood board – Mike Watson / Getty Images

Let me share some eye-opening news. Every child embodies genetic experimentation, with nature exhibiting indifference if things don’t go as planned. Our genomes present a complex tapestry shaped by conflicting evolutionary forces, and each of us carries roughly one hundred novel mutations.–Each birth introduces a unique mutation into the genetic pool.

Thus, I anticipate that in the future, gene editing of embryos will become commonplace once humanity confronts various daunting challenges, including climate change. There may come a time when natural conception is perceived as reckless.

Reaching that future is no trivial task. However, if you’ve been following the buzz from the tech community this year, it’s no surprise you feel optimistic. By 2025, we discovered at least three startups focused on creating gene-edited babies.

So, is the dawn of CRISPR on the horizon, or could these startups potentially face backlash?

Preventing Genetic Diseases

Among these startups, Manhattan Genomics and Preventive aim not for enhancement but to avert severe genetic disorders. This noble objective is commendable, but it’s important to note that many of these conditions can already be forestalled through existing screening techniques, such as genetic testing of IVF embryos prior to implantation, a process with a high rate of success.

So why pursue the development of gene-edited embryos, a complex and legally challenging endeavor, when IVF screening already provides a viable solution?

Preventive did not respond to inquiries, but a spokesperson from Manhattan Genomics noted that couples undergoing IVF often don’t have enough viable embryos to choose from. By editing disease-carrying embryos instead of discarding them, the likelihood of having a healthy child increases. The company believes that gene editing could enhance the chances for approximately ten embryos affected by Huntington’s disease and thirty-five embryos affected by sickle cell disease annually for couples using IVF.

However, this translates to a very limited number of births. Approximately one-third of IVF embryos lead to viable births, and this percentage may drop further post-editing. Furthermore, significant challenges accompany this approach. Although CRISPR technology has advanced, there’s still a risk of introducing harmful mutations as unintended consequences.

Moreover, the editing process often fails to initiate or can continue even after the embryo has begun dividing. This results in various genetic alterations within the same embryo, a phenomenon known as mosaicism. The illegal CRISPR children from China come to mind, announced in 2018.

Consequently, it becomes uncertain whether the mutation causing the disease was indeed corrected in the edited embryo and whether any harmful mutations emerged as a result.

Doing It Right

Solutions do exist. For instance, some gene-edited animals have been developed by modifying stem cells and then cloning them once the desired alterations have been confirmed. However, I previously explained that cloned animals often exhibit various health issues and unexpected traits, underscoring the necessity for foundational research and rigorous oversight should this approach be pursued for humans.

We have two strong examples of responsibly introducing embryonic gene editing through mitochondrial donation initiatives in the UK and Australia. Mitochondria are cellular energy producers that contain their own small genomes. Mutated mitochondria can lead to severe health issues if passed down to offspring, but this risk can be mitigated by substituting them with healthy donor mitochondria.

A version of mitochondrial technology emerged in private fertility clinics in the US during the 1990s, during which humanity witnessed the first genetically modified human. Initial attempts led to the banning of this technology in the US.

While mitochondrial donation was previously prohibited in the UK, changes in the law came about following advocacy from patient groups, extensive dialogue, and consultation. It now receives approvals on a trial basis as needed.Australia is pursuing a similar path.

What Is the Real Objective?

This is the ideal framework for introducing new reproductive technologies: transparently, legally, and under independent supervision. Yet, at least two startups are reportedly conducting experiments in countries with laxer gene editing laws.

This does not advance science, as trust in the claims made by private companies acting without regulatory oversight diminishes. Conversely, this approach could prompt a backlash, leading to more countries tightening regulations against gene editing.

For these billionaires – with Preventive’s investors including notable figures like OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong – if your genuine intention is to combat severe genetic diseases, investing in nonprofit research organizations could yield significantly greater results.

Or is the ultimate aim to engineer your own child instead of assisting other couples in achieving healthy pregnancies? This is clearly the mission of the third startup, Bootstrap Bio.

In next month’s column, we will explore whether gene editing can truly be utilized to enhance our children.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

A Simple Skincare Routine Can Prevent Eczema in Babies

Posted on by
Reply
SEI 259862948

Daily moisturizing of your baby’s skin may provide lasting benefits

Nattrass/Getty Images

Regular application of moisturizers to your baby’s skin can potentially lower the chances of developing eczema, though it largely depends on the individual’s risk factors.

Eczema, or atopic dermatitis, is an inflammatory skin condition marked by intense itching and dryness, which can lead to blisters and bleeding. It often begins in early childhood, with many experiencing a decline in symptoms as they age.

To evaluate the effectiveness of moisturizers, Hywel Williams and his team at the University of Nottingham in the UK surveyed over 1,200 parents in the United States whose infants did not have eczema.

Among the infants aged 0-8 weeks, half had a family history of eczema, indicating a higher genetic predisposition to the condition.

The researchers randomly assigned about half of the parents to apply one of five available moisturizers, which were non-prescription options. Parents could select and swap moisturizers as they preferred.

The remaining parents were advised to only use moisturizers as needed, such as when their baby’s skin looked dry. More than half reported using them at least once weekly.

After two years, the research team reviewed the infants’ health records. They found that 43% of the non-moisturizer group had received an eczema diagnosis, compared to only 36% in the moisturizer group. “This represents a significant decrease,” said Michael Cork from the University of Sheffield, UK.

However, upon further analysis, the researchers discovered that moisturizers were effective primarily in babies without close relatives who had eczema. This finding aligns with previous research, highlighted in a study indicating that moisturizers may not benefit those at high genetic risk for the condition.

Individuals with lower genetic risk might develop eczema due to environmental influences like air pollution. Moisturizers are theorized to fill the gaps between skin cells, thus blocking irritants from penetrating the skin and triggering inflammation that manifests as eczema.

In contrast, those with a high genetic predisposition to eczema may already exhibit heightened levels of inflammation, which could limit the protective benefits of moisturizers, Cork noted.

The study did not determine which moisturizer was most effective as parents were not monitored for changing between different options. Further investigation is necessary, Cork stated.

There is a need to explore whether these findings hold true for populations in other countries, suggested Carsten Flohr from King’s College London.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Babies Created with Three DNA Sources Are Free from Genetic Disorders

Posted on by
Reply

The baby became pregnant via IVF

Zephyr/Science Photo Library

Eight young children seem to be shielded from severe genetic disorders following their birth through a three-parent DNA technique. This method involved replacing defective maternal mitochondria with those from a female donor.

Approximately 1 in 5,000 individuals carry mitochondrial defects that provide energy to cells and are inherited solely from the mother. Such defects may result from genetic mutations leading to issues like blindness, seizures, and, in extreme cases, death. “Families find it incredibly challenging to cope with these diseases. They are heart-wrenching,” states Bobby McFarland from Newcastle University, UK.

In 2015, the UK first sanctioned a procedure called pronuclear transfer for women at high risk of passing on mitochondrial conditions, particularly those who cannot benefit from pre-implantation genetic testing.

This nuclear transfer technique utilizes eggs from both mothers and donors, which are fertilized with paternal sperm via IVF. After roughly 10 hours, the nuclei from both eggs are extracted, leaving behind the crucial genetic material that is separate from mitochondrial DNA.

The nucleus from the mother is subsequently inserted into the donor’s egg, yielding an embryo that primarily inherits DNA from its biological parent while acquiring mitochondria from the donor. Some mitochondrial DNA from the mother may still be unintentionally transmitted, according to Burt Smeet from Maastricht University in the Netherlands.

McFarland, who pioneered this method with her team, has applied the technique to 19 women harboring harmful mutations in over 80% of their mitochondria, typically the level that causes issues.

Seven of the women achieved pregnancy after the final embryo transfer, resulting in eight healthy births, including one pair of twins.

The researchers evaluated blood samples from the newborns, finding no harmful mitochondrial DNA mutations in five, and only trace levels in the remaining three. “The results have exceeded expectations,” says Mike Murphy from Cambridge University.

In the months or years following these nuclear transfers, all children have shown progress with developmental milestones. However, some may encounter complications that may or may not be linked to the procedure. For instance, one child developed high blood fat levels and an abnormal heartbeat, both of which were successfully addressed, while another experienced epilepsy at 7 months old, which resolved on its own.

The research team plans to monitor these children to assess the long-term consequences of the procedure.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

How Does Society Respond to Babies with Two Genetic Fathers?

Posted on by
Reply

James Watson, a Nobel Prize-winning co-discussor of the DNA double helix, remarked in 1974, “All hell is unleashed politically and morally around the globe” regarding the potential of human in vitro fertilization.

Today, more than 12 million individuals are expecting through IVF, and the world seems relatively calm. Many of us may not have fully grasped this procedure.

Yet, what about our perceptions of future reproductive technologies? This question is sparked by the recent birth of a fertile mouse with two genetic fathers. While similar experiments have previously led to the creation of both motherless and fatherless mice, this new method is notable as it does not involve genetic alterations. Typically, this could also be applicable for human use.

Various obstacles, including low success rates and the removal of DNA from numerous human eggs, explain why such advancements aren’t imminent. Nonetheless, it is essential to begin contemplating the societal implications.

For some, the notion of a child having two genetic fathers may never be accepted, just as there remains criticism towards gay couples expanding their families. Changing such perspectives may prove challenging, if not impossible.

Like IVF, what used to be front-page news could eventually become routine.

However, one can expect a broader public to exhibit a strict moral opposition to this idea, along with a general sense of unease. The inaugural child born from this method is, in many ways, distinct from all previous human beings. IVF-born children come into existence through a process unimaginable to our ancestors but continue to carry the genetic lineage from one male and one female ancestor.

Is this significant? Just like IVF, what was once front-page news may soon be commonplace. In a time when reproductive and trans rights are being restricted in the U.S., engaging in objective discourse about emerging technologies presents a greater challenge. Fortunately, these questions do not require immediate answers.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Smart Devices Can Accurately Measure Breastfed Babies’ Intake

Posted on by
Reply

Measuring the Amount of Breast Milk in Breastfeeding

Lebedinskaia Natalia/Getty Images

Parents may soon be able to monitor how much breast milk their baby consumes through devices that provide real-time notifications to their smartphones.

“The anxiety surrounding breastfeeding often stems from the uncertainty about how much milk a baby is receiving,” explains Daniel Robinson from Northwestern University, Illinois. “This can heighten stress for nursing mothers, parents, and healthcare professionals.” Insufficient nutrition can lead to slower weight gain in infants and, in severe cases, dehydration.

Clinicians typically evaluate breastfeeding effectiveness by comparing weights before and after feeds and monitoring diaper changes. However, these methods are somewhat cumbersome and imprecise, according to Robinson.

To create a more precise measurement system, he and his team engineered a device featuring four electrodes, each 4 cm wide, that attach to the breast away from the nipple. Two electrodes transmit a very low electrical current across the breast, while the other pair receives it.

This device relays recordings to a smartphone app, leveraging the weaker electrical signals produced as milk is released, enabling real-time calculations of milk volume, Robinson shares.

Researchers tested this system with breastfeeding mothers who expressed milk into a bottle for approximately 15 minutes. The device’s average milk collection was within 2 ml of the actual amount, as each participant expressed about 50 ml.

This innovation could allow parents to monitor their baby’s nutrition more effectively, potentially leading to timely adjustments such as supplementing with formula under medical guidance, Robinson notes.

The device consists of sticky electrodes that adhere to the breast

Northwestern University

In another trial, a woman used the device while nursing, and the app reported that her baby consumed 24 ml of milk. This closely matched the 20 ml estimation derived from traditional weight measurements taken before and after feeding, Robinson notes.

“A prevalent reason many mothers discontinue breastfeeding is the belief that their milk supply is inadequate, making this technology crucial for determining its accuracy,” states Mary Fewtrell from University College London.

However, to ensure the credibility of this device, further research is necessary to understand any potential impacts on milk production, long-term side effects, and whether parents find it desirable, observes Amy Brown from Swansea University, UK.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

EPA Institutes Ban on Pesticides that Pose Risks to Unborn Babies

Posted on by
Reply

The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Tuesday that an emergency order has been issued. This action is the first of its kind in almost four decades and aims to halt the use of pesticides that may harm unborn babies.

The herbicide in question, dimethyltetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA or Dacthal), is commonly used to control weeds in various crops like broccoli, onions, kale, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, and strawberries.

Exposure to this chemical during pregnancy can lead to changes in thyroid hormone levels in the fetus, which could result in long-term negative impacts such as low birth weight, impaired brain development, lower IQ, and diminished motor skills later in life, according to the EPA.

This risk prompted the EPA to take decisive action and suspend the use of the pesticide. Michal Friedhoff, deputy director of the Office for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, stated, “DCPA is extremely dangerous and needs to be removed from the market immediately.” The agency emphasized this in a statement.

The emergency order is now in effect.

Friedhoff further emphasized the EPA’s role in safeguarding the public from hazardous chemicals, saying, “In this case, a pregnant woman who unknowingly encounters DCPA could give birth to a child with irreversible health issues.”

The DCPA has been banned in the European Union since 2009.

Miri Treviño Sauceda, executive director of the National Farmers Union, praised the EPA’s decision as “historic.”

The suspension follows years of dialogue between the EPA and AMVAC Chemical Corporation, the sole manufacturer of DCPA.

The company has not responded to requests for comment.

In 2013, the EPA requested data from AMVAC on the herbicide’s health effects, specifically requesting comprehensive studies on DCPA’s impact on thyroid development. Despite receiving multiple studies from AMVAC between 2013 and 2021, the EPA found the data inadequate and did not accept certain requests, including the thyroid study, until it was finally submitted in August 2022.

The EPA’s recent assessment of DCPA was part of a routine process to reassess registered pesticides. Inspections occur every 15 years to ensure there are no adverse health effects or environmental hazards.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

The Switched Babies: A Tale of Two Men and an Unusual Turn of Events | Podcast

Posted on by
Reply

HHave you ever been to Taylor Town? As you know, it’s where The Beatles came from. It’s where you can catch a ferry across the River Mersey. It’s home to two famous football stadiums, Goodison Park and Anfield, the latter of which I think was home to Taylorpool FC. Oh, wait. It’s not. It’s Liverpool, right?

Frankly, you could be forgiven for making that mistake, because the place is getting all hyped up about Taylor Swift’s upcoming concert, with “Liverpool Loves Taylor” posters plastered all over the city and an 11-part art installation trail featuring a grand piano, a throne and “hand-made seagulls” has been created. Rename the town after the star.

But is it too much? When does one musician have too big an impact on the world? Is Taylor Swift (whisper it) boring? These are the topics explored in detail in the latest series of The Guardian’s Pop Culture With Chanté Joseph. Swift’s Elle Hunt takes a deep dive into the artist. This week, we’re joined by a great club history of a Welsh LGBTQ+ venue, a wild tale of people mixed up at birth, and a profile of sporting heroes from Colin Murray and Ellis James. We also bring you a roundup of the best podcasts to get you through the upcoming Euros. And if England doesn’t perform as well as expected, there’s one piece of advice from Liverpool’s new de facto mayor: shake it off.

Alexi Duggins
Deputy TV Editor

This week’s picks




East Block, an LGBT club in London. Photo: PYMCA/UIG/Getty Images

All you need to play for
Wondery+, all episodes will be released on Monday
Just in time for the Euros, Ellis James and Colin Murray launch their Sports Heroes Podcast to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Wayne Rooney’s Euro debut. Their fact-packed commentary is passionate and they have a lot of empathy for the young Rooney’s first appearance as he faced off against the press conferences and tabloids. With Euro 2004 coming up, the pressure is even greater as a nation places its hopes on the talented 18-year-old. Hannah Verdier

Source: www.theguardian.com

Coinbase Addresses U.S. Regulatory Lawsuit Regarding Virtual Currencies, Comparable to Beanie Babies | Cryptocurrency

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge in Manhattan on Wednesday accused Coinbase and U.S. securities regulators of disagreements over whether digital assets are and are not securities in a case closely watched by the crypto industry.

Coinbase opposed classifying cryptocurrencies as securities, arguing that digital coins are like Beanie Babies and more like collectibles than company stock.

“There’s a difference between buying Beanie Babies and buying Beanie Babies,” said William Savitt, a lawyer for Coinbase.


Coinbase has asked a court to dismiss a Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit alleging that the largest U.S. cryptocurrency exchange is selling unregistered securities in defiance of regulations.

The SEC countered this argument by arguing that purchasing the token amounted to acquiring the issuer’s company.

The SEC argued that the crypto tokens at the center of the lawsuit support larger “companies” and are akin to investment contracts.

“When they buy this token, they are investing in the network behind it. You cannot separate one from the other. As the value of the network or ecosystem increases, [associated] It’s a token,” SEC attorney Patrick Costello said.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla heard arguments from both sides on Wednesday, focusing her questions on case law defining what securities regulators consider investment contracts and the attributes of some crypto tokens traded on platforms such as Coinbase. did. Failla said he was still considering several questions after a hearing that lasted more than four hours and did not decide the issue in court.

The judge’s ruling helps clarify the SEC’s jurisdiction over this area and is likely to impact digital assets. This case is one of many filed by the SEC against the crypto sector. The agency initially focused on companies selling digital tokens, but under the chairmanship of Gary Gensler, it has targeted companies that provide trading platforms, clearing activities, and act as broker-dealers.

The SEC sued Coinbase in June, accusing it of facilitating trades in at least 13 crypto tokens, including Solana, Cardano, and Polygon, which should have been registered as securities.

Although the Securities Act of 1933 outlined the definition of the term “security,” many experts rely on U.S. Supreme Court precedent to determine whether an investment product qualifies as a security. Masu. The key test is whether people are contracted to invest in common companies with the expectation of profit.

Coinbase argued that unlike stocks and bonds, crypto assets do not meet the definition of an investment contract, a position held by the majority of the crypto industry.

SEC lawyers argued that securities are different from buying collectibles like baseball cards or Beanie Babies, citing a 1990s trend in which Americans bought stuffed animals in hopes of rising prices.

“When you buy a collectible item, like a baseball card or some kind of figurine, you’re just buying that item. You’re buying something,” Costello said.

Still, Feira told SEC lawyers that he is “concerned” that the agency is seeking to “expand the definition of what constitutes a security.”

The SEC said buyers of digital assets, even on secondary markets like Coinbase’s platform, are buying tokens as investments similar to stocks and bonds.

However, Coinbase’s lawyers disagreed, pointing out that purchasers of such tokens did not sign a contract giving them the right to receive public corporate profits.

“Let me just say this: I would have been shocked to learn that the investment agreement had nothing to do with the contract,” said William Savitt, a lawyer for Coinbase.

The judge appeared to reject Coinbase’s argument that the case involved the so-called material issue doctrine. This legal principle is based on the Supreme Court’s decision that federal agencies cannot be regulated without specific authorization from Congress.

In its lawsuit, the SEC also targets Coinbase’s “staking” program, which pools assets and charges fees to verify activity on the blockchain network in exchange for “rewards” to customers. The SEC said the program should have been registered with the SEC.

Source: www.theguardian.com