No matter how good a parent you are, you’ve had your share of bad-parent moments. Maybe you “couldn’t find” your toddler’s lost binkie. Perhaps you pretended to be using the bathroom when really you were finishing a chapter of Fifty Shades Of Grey. Or maybe you smoked massive amounts of pot and drove off with your newborn on the top of your car in her carrier. We all have our days, right?
Of course you don’t have to dump your infant into a busy intersection to endanger her life. You could just smear a little teething gel on her gums. At least that’s the word from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its new, stronger warnings about the dangers of benzocaine, a common ingredient in over-the-counter teething gels.
Photo courtesy FDA
Just a thought: Parents with teething babies might consider putting up with their fussing and chewing on sunglasses rather than use an OTC product containing benzocaine.
You may recall that benzocaine can, in rare cases, cause methemoglobinemia, poisoning red blood cells so that they don’t carry oxygen. The FDA reminds parents to become alarmed and seek medical care if they notice any of the following symptoms in an infant or child who has used teething gel: pale, gray, or blue skin; shortness of breath; confusion; light-headedness; or rapid heart rate. Parents who don’t become concerned when they see these symptoms are advised to smoke less pot.
FDA officials did not comment on why they are leaving a drug on the market that has the potential to kill infants when used as prescribed. My personal guess is they don’t want to be accused of being part of the “nanny state.” I would just as soon have a nanny state, especially if it could dance with chimney sweeps and fly using a magical umbrella, but I suspect that would require some sort of tax increase.
The big pediatric headline this week was not about what harms kids but about what may not help them: long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid (LCPUFA) supplements in infant formula. I’ve never been satisfied with the answers I get from some formula reps when I ask them why their powders are so expensive: “It’s the DHA and ARA.” You mean I’m paying for extra letters, and half of those are “A”? No, the answer goes, those are the LCPUFAs in breast milk, and we know that breast-fed babies have higher IQs on average than formula-fed babies. If we put this stuff in our formula then we imply but do not state explicitly that babies fed our product will be just as smart as breast-fed babies, and we will further insinuate that babies whose parents don’t pay for these supplements will be just a little less intelligent.
Can you follow that? If you can’t, don’t sweat it, because a study in this month’s Pediatrics suggests it’s not true. A rigorous meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials found no statistical differences in infant cognition from LCPUFA supplementation. Of course the formula arms race has already moved on to the world of prebiotics and probiotics, but in the end I suspect it will come back to basics: which company treats pediatricians to the tastiest dinner lecture.
Finally, amid all the academic double-speak, I think we should take a moment to recognize one researcher who did not mince words last week. Nutrition scientist Sharon L. Hoerr, PhD., of Michigan State University was commenting on the results of her group’s newly published study, “Feeding behaviors of low-income mothers: directive control relates to a lower BMI in children, and a nondirective control relates to a healthier diet in preschoolers.” Summing up the findings she told journalists, "With picky eaters, it's best to coax and encourage them to eat rather than yell at them." No yelling. Got it. To that I would only add, “and don’t drive off with your baby on the roof of the car.” Sometimes you just have to spell things out.