Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act delivered direct to your Inbox!

A A
By:

Peanut allergies plunge … and they could plunge even more

Not that long ago it was thought that young children shouldn’t be exposed to peanuts, to prevent a dangerous reaction. But, as Prov. 18:17 notes, “The first to put forth his case seems right, until someone else steps forward and cross-examines him.” That cross-examination first began in 2015, when a ground-breaking study found that introducing peanuts to young children actually reduced the risk of getting food allergies by about 70 percent or more. In response, many doctors started changing their advice.

An Associated Press piece noted that

“About 60,000 children have avoided developing peanut allergies after guidance first issued in 2015 upended medical practice by recommending that caregivers introduce the allergen to infants starting as early as four months.”

Now a 2025 study has reviewed the data. According to the AP account, peanut allergies in children aged zero to three decreased by more than 40 percent since the recommendations were expanded in 2017.

In spite of the findings from the 2015 study, the AP reported that only about 29 per cent of pediatricians and 65 per cent of allergists say they follow the newer guidelines, suggesting that there could have been far fewer allergy cases still if more children were introduced to potential allergens at a younger age.

Dr. Derek Chu, Canadian Institutes of Health Research chair in allergy noted to the AP that this guidance extends to all common allergens, including dairy, soy, wheat, egg, shellfish, and nuts.

Enjoyed this article?

Get the best of RP delivered to your inbox every Saturday for free.



Red heart icon with + sign.
Media bias

Proverbs 18:17: the antidote to Fake News

In the era of, not so much fake, but exaggerated, partisan, and selectively reported news, how can we discern the truth of a matter? God shows us the way in Proverbs 18:17, where we are told the first to present his case seems right until a second comes and questions him. What does it look like, to put this verse into action? Let’s take a classic example from the US gun debate. In the early 1990s Emory University medical professor Arthur Kellermann told Americans that owning a gun was associated with a 2.7 times greater risk of being murdered. Kellermann shared that in his study of three metropolitan areas they had found three-quarters of the victims were murdered by someone they knew, and nearly half by gunshot wounds. That raised the question of whether having a gun in the house might increase rather than decrease a person’s chance of being murdered. The New York Times, and other media outlets, spread these findings far and wide. But was the anti-gun case as compelling as it seemed? To find out, we have to continue on and hear from the critics – the first has presented his case and now we need a second to come and question him. Critics noted that Kellermann’s study showed an equal risk increase associated with owning a burglar alarm. National Review’s Dave Kopel pointed out, this study overlooks “the obvious fact that one reason people choose to own guns, or to install burglar alarms, is that they are already at a higher risk of being victimized by crime…. Kellermann’s method would also prove that possession of insulin increases the risk of diabetes.” The National Rifle Association wanted people to understand that a study of homicides couldn’t give a good measure of how effective guns could be for personal protection. "99.8 percent of the protective uses of guns do not involve homicides," explained NRA spokesman Paul H. Blackman, but instead would involve brandishing the weapon to hold off an assault, or perhaps firing the weapon to scare or wound the assailant. The first presenter might have had us thinking guns clearly needed to be banned. But that was only half the story. Even after hearing from the critics we don’t have the full picture – veteran newsman Ted Byfield once noted that to provide every side of a story we’d need more ink than exists in the whole of the world – but by hearing the two sides argue it out we have a much better picture. God tells us in Prov. 18:17 that if we hear only one side – even if it’s our side – then it’s likely we’re going to miss something. So if the truth matters to us we want to give even our opponents a hearing. At least the thoughtful ones (Prov. 14:7)....