Last week, a book publisher announced they would not publish a paleo cookbook for babies after experts expressed serious safety concerns. Today, nutritionist Dr Joanna McMillan weighs in on the debate.
We get the science behind the diet.
After all the uproar in media last week over authorities stepping in to prevent a Paleo for babies book being published in its current form, I thought it timely to discuss the nutrition science of infant nutrition and whether or not a Paleo diet is suitable, desirable or dangerous.
Let’s start with the most controversial aspect – the proposed alternative baby formula consisting of a bone broth (i.e. stock) with added liver amongst other ingredients.
Now for most of us, liver is a highly nutritious food and many would undoubtedly benefit from adding it to their diet. But not everyone. During pregnancy women are advised to avoid liver due to the extremely high levels of vitamin A, which can cause deformities in the unborn child. This is well-established science and back in Paleo days gone by our savvy ancestors may well have worked this out for themselves.
So can babies eat liver? Well, yes they can. Our Australian Infant Feeding Guidelines list liver amongst suitable foods that can be given to babies from around six months (exclusive breast feeding is recommended before then). It is around this time that babies need to get more iron than they obtain from breast milk and liver is indeed an excellent source of iron.
The concern however with this ‘Paleo formula’ is the quantity of liver and the frequency it would be fed to the baby. Consider that half a cooked chicken liver (about 10g) contains almost double the upper limit recommended for vitamin A for an infant aged 6-12 months. Lamb liver is even higher with the same quantity providing 4.5 times what is considered the safe upper limit.
Top Comments
Hallelujah.. Some common sense and SCIENCE.
Paleo. The diet based on the idea that everything evolved, except your guts. pffffft