How Science Corrected Its Course on Peanut Allergies

Science got peanut allergies all wrong – until the scientific method got it right

A straightforward inquiry concerning peanut sensitivities propelled Dr. Gideon Lack towards a groundbreaking revelation that would fundamentally alter global perceptions of food allergies. What started as a mere interest evolved into extensive research spanning decades, ultimately redefining medical recommendations for countless parents.

The inquiry that ignited a transformation

When Dr. Gideon Lack stood before an audience of allergists and pediatricians years ago, he asked what seemed like a straightforward question: how many of them had treated a child with a peanut allergy? In most countries, nearly every hand would go up. Peanut allergies had become one of the most common—and frightening—childhood conditions, affecting about two percent of children in the United States and showing similar numbers in the United Kingdom.

But when Lack presented the identical query at a Tel Aviv conference, merely a handful of physicians indicated affirmative. Among approximately two hundred specialists, scarcely three had managed such an instance. This disparity perplexed him. Jewish children residing in London, possessing genetic profiles akin to those in Israel, exhibited considerably elevated rates of peanut allergy. What, therefore, accounted for this striking divergence?

That puzzling moment set Lack on a journey that would span more than fifteen years and ultimately overturn one of medicine’s most deeply held beliefs about allergy prevention.

Discovering an unexpected pattern

The solution, as Lack subsequently discovered, was readily apparent. During his stay in Israel, he observed a distinctive aspect of the local dietary customs. Parents frequently offered their infants “Bamba,” a well-liked peanut-flavored puffed snack, starting from as early as four to six months old. This item contained substantial quantities of peanut protein, and Israeli youngsters consumed it consistently and with great enjoyment.

In contrast, parents in the United Kingdom were being instructed to do the precise opposite: to refrain from introducing peanuts or other potential allergens to their babies until they reached an age of several years. The reasoning behind this recommendation appeared logical at the time—if a particular food had the potential to cause allergies, then perhaps postponing its introduction would avert sensitization. However, the remarkably low incidence of peanut allergies observed in Israeli children indicated that this long-held strategy could be entirely mistaken.

Curious, Lack and his team compared the diets of around 10,000 children—half in Israel and half in London—who shared similar ancestry. The results were undeniable: peanut allergies were almost ten times more common among the British group. The only clear difference was when peanuts were introduced into the diet. Israeli babies were consuming the equivalent of ten peanuts a week by their first birthday, while British babies had virtually none.

Although the discovery was intriguing, it remained an observation. To transform a correlation into definitive proof, Lack required stringent scientific validation.

Questioning long-standing medical recommendations

At the time, the notion of deliberately feeding peanuts to infants seemed almost reckless. Many doctors and parents worried that such an approach would provoke allergic reactions rather than prevent them. Funding agencies were hesitant, and ethical concerns loomed large. Nevertheless, Lack persisted.

In 2008, backed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, his group initiated a substantial, meticulously managed investigation known as the LEAP trial (Learning Early About Peanut Allergy). This study concentrated on babies who faced an elevated risk of developing allergies due to severe eczema or pre-existing egg allergies. The infants were randomly assigned to one of two cohorts: one group was to completely abstain from peanuts, while the other was prompted to consume small quantities of peanut-derived foods consistently, starting as early as four months old.

Enrolling the 640 individuals spanned a two-year period, and the research tracked their progress for half a decade. The findings, upon their disclosure, were remarkable. Within the cohort of children who abstained from peanuts, almost 14% had developed peanut allergies by their fifth birthday. For the group that incorporated peanuts into their diet early on, this figure plummeted to under 2%. Even for youngsters who had exhibited initial indicators of sensitivity, consistent peanut intake reduced the likelihood of developing a severe allergy by over two-thirds.

The information showed a decrease of more than 80% in peanut allergy occurrences for individuals who were exposed to peanuts at an early age—a significant discovery that completely altered previous medical recommendations.

From initial insight to complete metamorphosis

When the LEAP study’s findings were published in 2015 in The New England Journal of Medicine, they marked a turning point in allergy research and pediatric nutrition. For years, official guidelines had recommended delaying exposure to allergenic foods. Now, the evidence was clear: early introduction, not avoidance, was the key to building tolerance.

The implications were enormous. The American Academy of Pediatrics, which had once advised parents to wait until age three before introducing peanuts, reversed its stance. Updated guidelines issued in 2017 encouraged introducing peanut-containing foods as early as four to six months for most babies.

The effects of this change were swift and measurable. A 2024 study published in Pediatrics found that peanut allergy rates among U.S. children under age three had dropped by more than 40% since the new guidelines took effect. That translates to tens of thousands of children avoiding what had once been a lifelong and potentially life-threatening allergy.

The continuous advancement of medical knowledge

For Dr. Lack, the experience was both humbling and affirming. He admitted that, like many other doctors, he had once followed the avoidance strategy with his own children. Yet he also emphasized that the winding, self-correcting nature of science is what ultimately drives progress.

“The history of medicine is a series of zigzags,” he explained. “We make recommendations based on the best knowledge we have, and when the evidence changes, so should we.”

That philosophy continues to guide his research. Today, Lack co-leads a new project known as the SEAL study, once again challenging traditional assumptions. This time, the focus is on the connection between eczema and food allergies.

For a long time, medical professionals thought that food sensitivities caused eczema. However, current research indicates the opposite: infants who experience early onset eczema might be more prone to developing food allergies later on. The SEAL study seeks to investigate if proactive eczema treatment during the initial weeks of life—employing moisturizers and gentle topical remedies—could avert the emergence of allergies altogether.

The science behind early exposure

The core idea behind this novel investigation is termed the “dual-exposure hypothesis.” This theory suggests that the manner in which the immune system encounters food proteins dictates whether it identifies them as harmless or threatening. When an infant consumes food, exposure via the digestive tract instructs the immune system to accept it. However, exposure through compromised or inflamed skin, a common occurrence with eczema, could yield the opposite outcome, fostering sensitization and allergic responses.

Dr. David Hill, a pediatric allergist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a fellow researcher in this field, characterized the immune system as a guardian. He stated, “When infants consume foods early, their immune system recognizes these proteins as benign.” He further added, “However, if those identical proteins enter the body via compromised skin, the immune system might misinterpret them as dangers.”

Lack frequently illustrates the concept using a metaphor: “Should I politely tap on your front door and request entry, you’d likely extend a courteous welcome. However, if I were to smash through a window, your reaction would undoubtedly differ.”

If the SEAL study confirms this theory, it could transform not only allergy prevention but also pediatric dermatology and nutrition practices worldwide.

Redefining how we think about allergies

The progression from that initial presentation in Tel Aviv to the contemporary comprehension of preventing food allergies illustrates how scientific breakthroughs can overturn established beliefs. What started as a localized point of interest evolved into one of the most impactful transformations in pediatric healthcare in recent times.

Dr. Lack’s work has already changed the lives of countless families. Where once parents were told to avoid peanuts out of fear, they are now encouraged to introduce them early and safely—often under pediatric supervision. The research has also inspired further studies on other allergenic foods, from eggs to tree nuts, suggesting that early introduction could help reduce the global burden of allergies more broadly.

For Lack and his associates, the objective has consistently been more than just disseminating discoveries; it’s about instigating tangible alterations in the world. As he frequently reminds his listeners, scientific progress isn’t achieved through flawlessness but through the readiness to acknowledge errors. The crucial element, he contends, is maintaining receptiveness to data, even when it challenges all previously held beliefs.

From the joyful sounds of Israeli infants enjoying Bamba to the subsequent laboratory investigations, the narrative of preventing peanut allergies exemplifies perseverance, modesty, and the impact of challenging preconceived notions. It serves as a reminder that in scientific endeavors, much like in life, advancement seldom follows a direct path—yet each new finding propels us nearer to comprehension, recovery, and prophylaxis.

By Kevin Wayne

You May Also Like

  • Fluoride Supplement Restrictions by FDA: MAHA Explained

  • Identifying Foods with Antioxidant Properties

  • Understanding Psychoeducation

  • Boosting Mental Health Through Self-Care