Next Article in Journal
Psychometric Properties of the Dutch Version of the Eating Competence Satter Inventory (ecSI 2.0TM) in Community Adolescents
Previous Article in Journal
Protein Disulfide Isomerase Family A Member 3 Knockout Abrogate Effects of Vitamin D on Cellular Respiration and Glycolysis in Squamous Cell Carcinoma
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 15
Issue 21
10.3390/nu15214530
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Early Introduction of Novel and Less-Studied Food Allergens in the Plant-Based Era: Considerations for US and EU Infant Formula Regulations

by
Carina Venter
1,*,
Raanan Shamir
2 and
David Mark Fleischer
1
1
University of Colorado/Children’s Hospital Colorado: Section of Pediatric Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
2
Institute for Gastroenterology, Nutrition and Liver Disease, Schneider Children’s Medical Center of Israel, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 74071-12-20, Israel
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2023, 15(21), 4530; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15214530
Submission received: 6 September 2023 / Revised: 23 September 2023 / Accepted: 24 October 2023 / Published: 25 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Nutritional Immunology)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Early life feeding practices may affect the long-term health of individuals, particularly in terms of the development of non-communicable diseases, such as metabolic and allergic diseases. Accumulating evidence suggests that the interplay of breastfeeding and/or formula feeding followed by the introduction of solids plays a role in the occurrence of non-communicable diseases both in the short and long term. International food allergy guidelines recommend that breastfeeding women do not need to avoid food allergens and do not recommend any infant formula for allergy prevention. Guidelines regarding solid food introduction for food allergy prevention recommend the introduction of well-cooked eggs and peanuts around 4–6 months of age, and not to delay the introduction of other food allergens. There is also an increasing trend to feed infants a plant-based or plant-forward diet and have access to infant formulas based on plant-based ingredients. The use of novel plant-based infant formulas raises a few questions reviewed in this paper: (1) Do fortified, plant-based infant formulas, compliant with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (European) guidelines, support adequate infant growth? (2) Are plant-based infant formulas suitable for the management of cow’s milk allergy? (3) Does feeding with novel, plant-based infant formulas increase the risk of food allergies to the food allergens they contain? (4) Does feeding infants plant-based food allergens in early life increase the risk of allergic and severe allergic reactions? The review of the literature indicated that (1) plant-based formulas supplemented with amino acids and micronutrients to comply with FDA regulations and EFSA guidelines, evaluated in sufficiently powered growth studies, can support adequate growth in infants; (2) currently available plant-based infant formulas are suitable for the management of CMA; (3) an early introduction and continuous intake of food allergens are more likely to prevent food allergies than to increase their risk; and (4) an early introduction of food allergens in young infants is safe.

1. Introduction

Early life feeding practices may affect the long-term health of individuals, particularly in terms of the development of non-communicable diseases such as metabolic and allergic diseases [1]. Guidelines recommend that infants should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life [2]. For food allergy prevention, from four to six months of age, infants are introduced to solids, which will overlap with breast and/or formula feeding [3,4,5]. Solid food introduction also includes the introduction of food allergens. An adequate introduction of solid food while breastfeeding continues is important for nutritional and developmental reasons. The aim of feeding during the first year of life is to achieve eating a family diet by 12 months of age [6]. This means that at age one, in addition to breastfeeding, the child will consume a diet like what the family is eating [7].
There is no evidence that breastfeeding prevents food allergy [5]. Nevertheless, for many other health and non-health reasons, breastfeeding is the recommended method of infant feeding, and the method of feeding recommended for infants at high risk for developing allergic diseases. International food allergy guidelines recommend that breastfeeding women do not need to avoid food allergens, and there is currently no infant formula that is recommended for food allergy prevention [4,8,9].
Guidelines for introducing solid foods for food allergy prevention have changed over time [10]. Current guidance advocates for the introduction of peanuts and well-cooked eggs around 4–6 months of age, as these are the only two food allergens that have been studied with clear outcomes. They also indicate that infants should only commence solid food introduction when they are developmentally ready to consume solid foods. The guidelines also advise not to delay the introduction of other food allergens. Finally, the guidelines suggest that diet diversity in early life may prevent the development of food allergies in later childhood [4,8,9]. Foods targeted for allergy prevention may be country-specific and should take cultural eating habits into account [4,8,9]. The introduction of these allergens to exclusively breastfed infants does not harm breastfeeding when properly conducted [11].
Another significant change seen in early life feeding practices is the increasing demand of parents to feed their infants a plant-based diet [7]. Physicians and other clinicians are progressively seeing families where parents choose to feed their infants and young children plant-based “milk” alternatives to cow’s milk for various reasons, such as medical conditions or cultural dietary preferences, or health-related perceptions such as a possible beneficial effect on the gut microbiome [12]. A plant-based diet focuses on the consumption of vegetables, fruits, legumes, and grains, but does not necessarily eliminate all animal-based foods. This is different from a vegan diet, which cuts out all animal-based products, and a vegetarian diet, which removes certain animal-based products. In adults, plant-based diets have been associated with clear benefits in health outcomes, such as the prevention of chronic diseases and improvement in health in those suffering from certain chronic diseases [13]. In children, current data are not that conclusive. As there are no data regarding plant-based diets, we here summarize data regarding vegan and vegetarian diets.
A systematic review on vegetarian diets indicated that due to the heterogeneity and small sample sizes of studies, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions on either the health benefits or risks of plant-based diets in children [14]. A position statement from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (US) concludes that vegan and vegetarian diets are nutritionally acceptable and may prevent or treat many diseases. This position statement states further that vegetarian and vegan diets are appropriate for all ages and that plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than other diets [15]. However, as infants on plant-based diets may be at risk of nutritional deficiencies, it is recommended that these infants, if not breastfed, consume a suitably fortified plant-based formula based on rice and/or soy [16]. It is important to distinguish between plant-based formulas which have been supplemented appropriately to meet FDA (US) regulations and EFSA (European) guidelines [17] and plant-based beverages that are commercially available but not approved by the FDA and EFSA. These plant-based beverages may be supplemented with calcium, vitamin D, and several other nutrients [18]. To date, however, they are not supplemented with amino acids, so their nutrient composition does not comply with FDA standards for infant formula [19]. FDA and EFSA also recommend that infant formula should be supplemented with vitamins and minerals, as well as omega 3 (DHA) and omega 6 (ARA). Thus, these plant-based beverages are often nutritionally inadequate to support normal growth and development compared to toddler formulas or cow’s milk. Inappropriate use of plant-based beverages/milks has been associated with inadequate weight gain and growth, electrolyte imbalance, and inadequate nutrient intake. It is, however, difficult to determine if this is a direct association or an indirect association with cow’s milk avoidance [20,21,22,23].
The use of novel plant-based formulas is increasing, but raises the following concerns that need to be addressed:
(1)
Do fortified plant-based infant formulas, compliant with FDA regulations and EFSA (European) guidelines, support adequate infant growth?
(2)
Are plant-based infant formulas suitable for the management of cow’s milk allergy (CMA)?
(3)
Does feeding with novel plant-based infant formulas increase the risk of food allergies to the food allergens they contain?
(4)
Does feeding infants plant-based food allergens in early life increase the risk of allergic and severe allergic reactions?
This review paper will address the listed questions with an emphasis on a novel plant-based formula containing almonds and buckwheat.

2. Methods

For this narrative review, we performed a systematic search of the literature using six electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus) to collect papers written in English. We used the search terms almond, tree nut, buckwheat, prevalence, incidence, sensitization, food allergy, oral food challenge, reported food allergy, specific IgE, and skin prick test. For prevalence data, available data from across the whole world were included, while guidelines and recommendations were limited to the US and Europe.

3. Overview

3.1. Do Fortified Plant-Based Infant Formulas, Compliant with FDA Regulations and European Food Safety Authority (European) Guidelines, Support Adequate Infant Growth?

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) highlights the importance of adequate growth and nutrition throughout childhood [24]. The North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) Nutrition Committee recently published a document [12] stating that that an inadequate nutritional intake can adversely affect a child’s nutritional status, growth, and development, and that cow’s milk intake plays a particularly important role in a child’s overall diet. The only currently available plant-based infant formulas that have been shown to support infant growth are hydrolyzed rice formula and soy formula containing intact proteins.

3.1.1. Rice Formula

Rice hydrolysates can be either partially or extensively hydrolyzed. Although rice is rich in essential amino acids, it lacks some amino acids that are present in human milk. To ensure nutritional adequacy and growth in infants with CMA, hydrolyzed rice formulas are supplemented with lysine, threonine, and tryptophan, like other hypoallergenic formulas, and meet the micronutrient requirements for infant formulas [25]. In terms of concerns about the inorganic arsenic content of these formulas, recent reports reassure that arsenic content is within safe limits [26,27].
A study by Vandenplas et al. [28] showed that an extensively hydrolyzed rice formula supported normal weight gain within the first month of use and normalization of weight-for-age, weight-for-length, and BMI z-scores within a 6-month period. Several other studies have also shown that rice hydrolysates support growth in infants [29,30,31,32] (Table 1).

3.1.2. Soy Formula

Soy formulas are supplemented with the amino acids methionine, taurine, and carnitine [33] and must comply with FDA guidance on micronutrient composition of infant formulas. Vandenplas et al. [34] performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis on the role of soy infant formulas in supporting growth and development. The authors identified fourteen randomized controlled trials which indicated that supplemental soy infant formulas support growth (weight and length gain) like human milk and cow’s milk-based infant formulas in infants. The AAP supports the use of soy-based infant formulas to support the normal growth and development of term infants who are not breastfed or fed with cow’s milk formula [35].
  • Conclusion
We conclude that the available evidence indicates that plant-based formulas, supplemented with the amino acids and micronutrients required to comply with FDA regulations and EFSA guidelines, sufficiently support growth in infants.
  • Recommendation
Plant-based formulas, supplemented with the amino acids and micronutrients required to comply with FDA regulations and developed based on sufficiently powered growth studies, can support normal growth in infants.

3.2. Are Plant-Based Infant Formulas Suitable for the Management of Cow’s Milk Allergy?

3.2.1. Rice-Based Formula

A small number of trials concluded that no allergic reactions, commonly associated with CMA, were triggered by the consumption of hydrolyzed rice formula in patients with CMA [28,36,37,38,39]. Currently, no studies have been carried out to test if rice hydrolysates can be used in children with a rice-triggered food allergy. Formulas included extensively hydrolyzed [28,36,37] and partially hydrolyzed formulas [38], and one formula where the level of hydrolysis was unclear [39].

3.2.2. Soy-Based Formula

Based on a review of three studies [40,41,42], it was estimated that 10–14% of infants with CMA may also develop an allergy to soy-based formula, in which case the use of soy formula was not recommended [43]. However, recent estimates of soy allergy are much lower, and current recommendations do find a place for the use of soy-based formulas in children with CMA [44].

3.3. Does Feeding Novel Plant-Based Infant Formulas Increase the Risk of Food Allergies to the Food Allergens They Contain?

In this review, we focus on the prevalence of two allergens incorporated into a novel almond-milk-based formula (almond and buckwheat) which is currently being used in the US and the EU. This plant-based formula is undergoing studies for its ability to support adequate infant growth and its suitability for use in infants with CMA. Understanding the prevalence of allergies to these food allergens provides information on the potential size of the problem, i.e., when the prevalence of a food allergy is very low, the potential risk of increasing the prevalence of the food allergy is also low. This review will focus on our current understanding of almond and buckwheat allergies worldwide. We will also further investigate if an early and continuous introduction of food allergens in early life, which is the case for feeding with infant formula, changes the risk of developing an allergy to the food allergen being fed.

3.3.1. Prevalence of Almond Allergy

Almonds are a fruit belonging to the Rosaceae family. Several allergens have been isolated from almonds, including Pru du 1 (2S albumin, spare protein), Pru du 2 (conglutin, 7S globulin, reserve protein), Pru du 3 (LPT, lipid transporting protein), Pru du 4 (profilin), Pru du 5 (ribosomal protein P2), and Pru du 6 (amandine–hexameric protein of 360 kDa 11S legumin). The main allergen in almonds, 2S albumin, may lead to cross-sensitization to walnuts, sunflower seeds, and peanuts, though clinically significant cross-reactions due to primary food allergies are rarely encountered [45]. Pollen food allergy syndrome is the occurrence of sensitization to pollen that contains similar allergens to a food, e.g., some people with birch pollen allergy may have itching in their mouth when they eat almonds, apples, carrots, hazelnuts, kiwis, peaches, pears, plums, cherries, or soy. Another example of pollen food allergy syndrome are the cross-reactions seen between grass pollen and celery, melons, oranges, peaches, and tomatoes. The main allergens responsible for these cross-reactions are PR-10 proteins and profilin. Clinical cross-reactions in patients with pollen food allergy syndrome have been reported, but these presentations of food-related symptoms are encountered in children old enough to have allergic rhinitis to pollen (usually 3–5 years of age or older) and have not been described in infants who are too young to be sensitized to pollens [46]. These reactions, however, are usually limited to the oropharynx and consist of localized pruritus, and they are extremely unlikely to lead to severe food allergic reactions.
The prevalence of population-based almond allergy has not been widely studied. Tree nut allergies include Brazil nuts, cashews, hazelnuts, pecans, pistachios, walnuts, and almonds. Tree nut allergy prevalence varies by age, region, and food allergy definition, and ranges from less than 1% to approximately 3% worldwide [47]. Studies from the EU report that hazelnuts are the most common source of tree nut allergy. In the UK, Brazil nuts are the most common source of tree nut allergy, primarily based on studies from the Isle of Wight, and cashews are the most common source of tree nut allergy in Australia. Recent US data from Gupta et al. [47] report almond (0.7%) and cashew (0.7%) allergies as the most common tree nut allergies in 0–17-year-old children, though still much lower than the 2.7% cashew nut allergy rate reported in 6-year-old Australian children. Almond allergy, including reported allergy and/or sensitization, has been studied in seven countries: Hungary [48], Iceland [49], Sweden [49], Turkey [50], the UK [51], US [52,53], and Australia [54]. (Table 2).
-
Sensitization
Using skin prick tests (SPTs), Venter et al. [56] described a sensitization rate of 0.3% in 3-year-old children and Roberts et al. [57] found a sensitization rate of 0.5% in 7-year-old children in the UK. No child in Turkey aged 6–9 years was found to be sensitized to almonds [50]. Similarly, using specific IgE testing, no elderly (60–97 years) persons in Hungary were sensitized to almonds [48].
-
Self-reported rates
Importantly, there were no self-reports of almond allergy in children aged 18 months in both Iceland and Sweden [49]. Another study from Sweden indicated a self-reported almond allergy rate of 3.8% in 4-year-old children [55].
-
Self-reported clinician’s/doctor’s diagnosis (not based on oral food challenges)
Surveys from the US indicated self-reported doctor’s diagnoses of almond allergy in 0.9% of adults in 1999 [52] and 1.6% in 2010 [58]. More recently, Gupta et al. [53] indicated self-reports of doctor’s diagnoses of almond allergy in 0.2% of US infants and 0.7% of 0–17-year-old children. This should be seen in the context of peanut allergy, which occurs in 2.2% of children up to 17 years of age and 0.6% of infants up to 1 year of age. In US infants at one year of age, almond allergy (0.2%) is also much lower than CMA (1.5%) and soy allergy (0.4%) [53].
-
Oral food challenges (OFCs).
Based on OFCs, the gold standard for food allergy diagnosis, there were no 6–9-year-old children in Turkey [50], nor any one- [51] or two- [56] year-old children in the UK diagnosed with an almond allergy. At 3 years of age [56], 0.2% of UK-based children were diagnosed with an almond allergy, but none at age one year.
  • Conclusion
Very little data regarding true food allergy to almonds are available. Only one study reported OFC-proven almond allergy in infants; that study found no infants to be almond-allergic, but 0.2% of these children were almond-allergic by age 3 years.
  • Recommendation
More robust studies are required to estimate the true prevalence of almond allergy in infants.

3.3.2. Prevalence of Buckwheat Allergy

Buckwheat originates from China, and the two buckwheat species include common buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum) and Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tartaricum). Food allergens in common buckwheat include Fag e1, Fag e2, and Flag e3, and those in Tartary buckwheat include Flag t1, Fag t2, and Fag t3. Clinical cross-reactivity has been described with peanuts, latex, coconut, quinoa, and poppy seeds, but is rare [59] (Table 3).
-
Self-reports
Self-reported prevalence figures are available from Korea [60,61], Japan [62], and China [63], but no studies have implemented OFCs to confirm the self-reported numbers. In one Korean study [60], 0.1% of 12–15-year olds and 6–12-year olds reported a buckwheat allergy. Another study reported that 0.3% of 6–16-year-olds consider themselves to have a buckwheat allergy [61]. In Japan, 0.22% of 5–10-year-olds reported a buckwheat allergy, [62] and in China, 0.4% of 13–21-year-olds reported a buckwheat allergy [63]. Recently, a case of a 4-year-old with food protein-induced enterocolitis (FPIES) triggered by buckwheat was reported in Japan based on an OFC, but FPIES triggered by buckwheat has not been reported in infants [64].
No data are available regarding sensitization to buckwheat, self-reported clinical diagnosis, or clinical diagnosis based on a good clinical history supported by sensitization or an oral food challenge.
  • Conclusion
There are no OFC studies to estimate the prevalence of buckwheat allergy, and there is a dearth of information on the prevalence of buckwheat allergy based on self-reported prevalence. There are no prevalence data for children and infants from non-Asian countries of origin. It is currently not possible to provide a true estimate of buckwheat allergy.
  • Recommendations
Robust studies are required to estimate the true prevalence of buckwheat allergy.

3.3.3. Early Introduction of Food Allergens

An early or timely introduction of food allergens, such as peanuts and eggs, is recommended by all international food allergy prevention guidelines, alongside no delay in the introduction of other foods or food allergens once the infant is ready to commence solid foods [4,8,9]. Many food allergens, such as milk, eggs, wheat, cod, peanuts, sesame, buckwheat, almonds, cashews, shrimp, walnuts, salmon, hazelnuts, or a combination of these, have been studied in early introduction trials (Table 4).
However, the age of introduction of almond and buckwheat for the prevention of these food allergens has not been studied. Thirteen well-conducted studies have been performed looking at the early introduction of food allergens and food allergy outcomes. Some of these, however, are cohort studies rather than randomized blinded controlled trials. Of note are the seven studies [11,72,73,74,75,76,77] focusing on the introduction of cow’s milk. The age of introduction varied between birth and up to 3–4 months of age. Some of these studies indicate that early introduction of milk, as early as at birth, followed by consistent intake of cow’s milk reduces the prevalence of CMA. None of the other food allergens have been introduced this early.
A recent systematic review [78] concluded that an earlier introduction of multiple allergenic foods during infancy was associated with a lower risk of developing food allergies. The timing of introducing cow’s milk and the risk of developing CMA showed a very low level of evidence or certainty. However, sensitivity analyses restricted to low-risk-of-bias data [74,77] reduced heterogeneity and showed a significant risk reduction in the case of early and continuous introduction of cow’s milk (RR, 0.32; 95%CI, 0.09–1.18; I2 = 0%). One of these studies, by Nishimura et al. [77], used a multi-allergen mix which included buckwheat. The overall incidence of food allergy by 18 months of age was significantly lower in the multi-allergen mix than in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.301 [95% CI 0.116–0.784]; p = 0.0066). None of the infants in either the multi-allergen mix or placebo group developed a buckwheat allergy. Another multi-allergen mix study [76] included almonds, and as with buckwheat, assessment for individual almond allergy was not conducted. However, the percentage of participants able to consume 8 g of total protein during the OFC was significantly higher in the group using the mixed protein supplement containing almond compared to the controls (p < 0.01). These two studies [76,77], alongside the EAT study [11], could be considered as studies investigating the role of food allergen diversity on food allergy outcomes. Overall, there is evidence to suggest that food allergen diversity by 12 months of age has been significantly associated with reduced odds of food allergy by 10 years of age [79].
A recent observational study in Japan indicated that buckwheat was avoided by 71.9% of families for infants at 18 months of age, but this avoidance or consumption was not associated with any allergic outcomes [80]. Another study from Japan investigated predictors for diagnosing buckwheat allergy [81] and found a higher buckwheat sIgE/total IgE was a significant predictor for a positive OFC. The age of introduction of buckwheat was, however, not reported.
  • Conclusion
There are currently no studies investigating the age of introduction of almonds or buckwheat as single allergens that may give an indication if an early introduction of these allergens may increase or reduce the risk of food allergies. However, studies focusing on single foods such as milk, egg, or peanut, or those using food allergen mixes, indicate that an early introduction and consistent intake of these foods (allergens) lead to a reduction in these specific food allergies or overall food allergy prevalence. Doses varied greatly in these studies, which may indicate that timing and frequency may be more important than the dose consumed.
  • Recommendation
Early introduction and continuous intake of food allergens are more likely to prevent food allergies than to increase their risk. The most beneficial dose of food allergens for tolerance induction is unclear.

3.4. Does Feeding Infants Plant-Based Food Allergens in Early Life Increase the Risk of Allergic and Severe Allergic Reactions?

The incidence of severe allergic reactions to buckwheat, including anaphylaxis, can be estimated as 0.1–0.01 cases per 100,000 person-years [59]. The incidence of almond anaphylaxis is not clear [82,83].
It is estimated that the risk of a severe reaction occurring in infants in the general population upon first ingestion is less than 0.08% [84]. Additionally, even if anaphylaxis were to occur at first ingestion, recent evidence shows that infant anaphylaxis is milder than that in older children [85,86]. There have been no reported fatalities due to early introduction, and it is generally presumed that infants do not have anaphylaxis, although it can occur. The food allergy prevention guidance from the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) states that “no life-threatening reactions to date have been reported as a result of earlier introduction of potential allergens into the infant diet” [87]. In the LEAP study, all infants challenged to peanut at recruitment had mild reactions, and none of the infants had anaphylaxis or required adrenaline [66]. The only studies reporting severe symptoms in infants used raw/pasteurized egg powder; the STAR study was stopped as one-third of the subjects experienced an allergic reaction, which included anaphylaxis, when fed the raw egg product [67]. Similarly, in the HEAP study, 10 of 23 children were excluded from the study as they developed anaphylaxis during the entry OFC [71]. These concerns were not raised in other early introduction trials.
  • Conclusion
The available data suggest that early introduction of food allergens, other than the introduction of raw eggs, is highly unlikely to cause a severe allergic reaction in young infants, with the risk of a severe reaction occurring below 0.1%. Furthermore, there have been no severe reactions reported to almonds or buckwheat in infants. Early introduction of food allergens other than raw egg in young infants is safe.
  • Recommendation
We recommend that food allergens can be safely introduced into the diets of young infants.

4. Overall Conclusions

The use of novel plant-based formulas is increasing. A formula based on almond and buckwheat proteins, fortified with amino acids to ensure the presence of all essential amino acids, vitamins, and minerals as well as omega 3 (DHA) and omega 6 (ARA), may be a suitable option for families requiring a plant-based option. This formula is currently undergoing studies to show that it supports normal growth in infants and children and is suitable for the treatment of CMA. It is unclear what the true prevalence of almond and buckwheat allergies is, if an early introduction of almond and buckwheat may increase the risk of developing allergies to these foods or decrease this risk, and if early introduction may lead to severe reactions in infants. However, our review of the literature indicates that (1) plant-based formulas supplemented with amino acids and micronutrients to comply with FDA regulations and EFSA guidelines, evaluated in sufficiently powered growth studies, can support adequate growth in infants; (2) currently available plant-based infant formulas are suitable for the management of CMA; (3) an early introduction and continuous intake of food allergens are more likely to prevent food allergies than increase their risk; and (4) early introduction of food allergens in young infants is safe.

Author Contributions

C.V. conceptualized the paper and prepared the first draft. R.S. and D.M.F. provided expert review and edits to the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper has been funded by an unrestricted grant from Else Nutrition.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

Shamir has received grants/research support from the Helmsley Foundation, Ukko; served as member of advisory boards for Abbott, Nestle Nutrition Institute, and Teva; has received payments/honorariums for lectures from Abbott, Nutricia, and the Nestle Nutrition Institute and has received payments/honorariums for consultancy from Abbott, Else, Nutricia, and the Nestle Nutrition Institute. Fleischer has received research support from Aimmune Therapeutics and DBV Technologies; has received personal fees from the FA & Anaphylaxis Connection Team, Else, National Peanut Board, UpToDate, Before Brands, AllerGenis, Aquestive, Aravax, DBV Technologies, Genentech, Intrommune, and Nasus. Venter reports grants from Reckitt Benckiser, grants from FA Research and Education, grants from the National Peanut Board, and personal fees from Reckitt Benckiser, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Danone, Abbott Nutrition, and Else Nutrition.

References

  1. Venter, C.; Maslin, K. The Future of Infant and Young Children’s Food: Food Supply/Manufacturing and Human Health Challenges in the 21st Century. Nestle Nutr. Inst. Workshop Ser. 2016, 85, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. World Health Organization. Advice on Exclusive Breastfeeding 2016. Available online: http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/ (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  3. Halken, S.; Muraro, A.; de Silva, D.; Khaleva, E.; Angier, E.; Arasi, S.; Arshad, H.; Bahnson, H.T.; Beyer, K.; Boyle, R. EAACI guideline: Preventing the development of food allergy in infants and young children (2020 update). Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2021, 32, 843–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Fleischer, D.M.; Chan, E.S.; Venter, C.; Spergel, J.M.; Abrams, E.M.; Stukus, D.; Groetch, M.; Shaker, M.; Greenhawt, M. A Consensus Approach to the Primary Prevention of Food Allergy Through Nutrition: Guidance from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology; American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology; and the Canadian Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pr. 2021, 9, 22–43.e4. [Google Scholar]
  5. Greer, F.R.; Sicherer, S.H.; Committee on Nutrition; Section on Allergy and Immunology. Effects of Early Nutritional Interventions on the Development of Atopic Disease in Infants and Children: The Role of Maternal Dietary Restriction, Breastfeeding, Hydrolyzed Formulas, and Timing of Introduction of Allergenic Complementary Foods. Pediatrics 2019, 143, e20190281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. US Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans: DGA 2020–2025. 2020. Available online: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans_2020-2025.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  7. Nuzzi, G.; Gerini, C.; Comberiati, P.; Peroni, D.G. The weaning practices: A new challenge for pediatricians? Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2022, 33 (Suppl. S27), 44–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Muraro, A.; Halken, S.; Arshad, S.H.; Beyer, K.; Dubois, A.E.; Du Toit, G.; Eigenmann, P.A.; Grimshaw, K.E.C.; Hoest, A.; Lack, G.L.; et al. EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines. Primary prevention of food allergy. Allergy 2014, 69, 590–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Netting, M.J.; Campbell, D.E.; Koplin, J.J.; Beck, K.M.; McWilliam, V.; Dharmage, S.C.; Tang, M.L.K.; Ponsonby, A.; Prescott, S.L.; Vale, S.; et al. An Australian Consensus on Infant Feeding Guidelines to Prevent Food Allergy: Outcomes From the Australian Infant Feeding Summit. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pr. 2017, 5, 1617–1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sampath, V.; Abrams, E.M.; Adlou, B.; Akdis, C.; Akdis, M.; Brough, H.A.; Chan, S.; Chatchatee, P.; Chinthrajah, S.; Cocco, R.R.; et al. Food allergy across the globe. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2021, 148, 1347–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Perkin, M.R.; Logan, K.; Tseng, A.; Raji, B.; Ayis, S.; Peacock, J.; Brough, H.; Marrs, T.; Radulovic, S.; Craven, J.; et al. Randomized Trial of Introduction of Allergenic Foods in Breast-Fed Infants. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 374, 1733–1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Merritt, R.J.; Fleet, S.E.; Fifi, A.; Jump, C.; Schwartz, S.; Sentongo, T.; Duro, D.; Rudolph, J.; Turner, J. North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Position Paper: Plant-based Milks. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2020, 71, 276–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Peña-Jorquera, H.; Cid-Jofré, V.; Landaeta-Díaz, L.; Petermann-Rocha, F.; Martorell, M.; Zbinden-Foncea, H.; Ferrari, G.; Jorquera-Aguilera, C.; Cristi-Montero, C. Plant-Based Nutrition: Exploring Health Benefits for Atherosclerosis, Chronic Diseases, and Metabolic Syndrome-A Comprehensive Review. Nutrients 2023, 15, 3244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Schürmann, S.; Kersting, M.; Alexy, U. Vegetarian diets in children: A systematic review. Eur. J. Nutr. 2017, 56, 1797–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Melina, V.; Craig, W.; Levin, S. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2016, 116, 1970–1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Kirby, M.; Danner, E. Nutritional deficiencies in children on restricted diets. Pediatr. Clin. North. Am. 2009, 56, 1085–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Authority, E.F.S. Scientific and Technical Guidance for the Preparation and Presentation of an Application for Authorisation of an Infant and/or Follow-on Formula Manufactured from Protein Hydrolysates. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4779 (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  18. Durban, R.; Groetch, M.; Meyer, R.; Coleman Collins, S.; Elverson, W.; Friebert, A.; Kabourek, J.; Marchand, S.M.; McWilliam, V.; Netting, M.; et al. Dietary Management of Food Allergy. Immunol. Allergy Clin. N. Am. 2021, 41, 233–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. US Food and Drug administration (FDA). Infant Formula Guidance Documents & Regulatory Information 2014. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-documents-regulatory-information-topic-food-and-dietary-supplements/infant-formula-guidance-documents-regulatory-information (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  20. Agostoni, C.; Terracciano, L.; Varin, E.; Fiocchi, A. The Nutritional Value of Protein-hydrolyzed Formulae. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2016, 56, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Meyer, R.; De Koker, C.; Dziubak, R.; Godwin, H.; Dominguez-Ortega, G.; Chebar Lozinsky, A.; Skrapac, A.; Gholmie, Y.; Reeve, K.; Shah, N. The impact of the elimination diet on growth and nutrient intake in children with food protein induced gastrointestinal allergies. Clin. Transl. Allergy 2016, 6, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Maslin, K.; Oliver, E.M.; Scally, K.S.; Atkinson, J.; Foote, K.; Venter, C.; Roberts, G.C.; Grimshaw, K.E.C. Nutritional adequacy of a cows’ milk exclusion diet in infancy. Clin. Transl. Allergy 2016, 6, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nachshon, L.; Goldberg, M.R.; Schwartz, N.; Sinai, T.; Amitzur-Levy, R.; Elizur, A.; Eisenberg, E.; Katz, Y. Decreased bone mineral density in young adult IgE-mediated cow’s milk-allergic patients. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2014, 134, 1108–1113.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Section on Breastfeeding; Eidelman, A.I.; Schanler, R.J.; Johnston, M.; Landers, S.; Noble, L.; Szucs, K.; Viehmann, L. Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk. Pediatrics 2012, 129, e827–e841. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fiocchi, A.; Brozek, J.; Schunemann, H.; Bahna, S.L.; von Berg, A.; Beyer, K.; Bradsher, J.; Compalati, E.; Ebisawa, M.; Guzmán, M.A.; et al. World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow’s Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2010, 3 (Suppl. S21), 57–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Meyer, R.; Carey, M.P.; Turner, P.J.; Meharg, A.A. Low inorganic arsenic in hydrolysed rice formula used for cow’s milk protein allergy. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2018, 29, 561–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Hojsak, I.; Braegger, C.; Bronsky, J.; Campoy, C.; Colomb, V.; Decsi, T.; Domellöf, M.; Fewtrell, M.; Mis, N.F.; Mihatsch, W.; et al. Arsenic in rice: A cause for concern. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2015, 60, 142–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vandenplas, Y.; De Greef, E.; Hauser, B.; Paradice Study, G. Safety and tolerance of a new extensively hydrolyzed rice protein-based formula in the management of infants with cow’s milk protein allergy. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2014, 173, 1209–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. D’Auria, E.; Sala, M.; Lodi, F.; Radaelli, G.; Riva, E.; Giovannini, M. Nutritional Value of a Rice-Hydrolysate Formula in Infants with Cows’ Milk Protein Allergy: A Randomized Pilot Study. J. Int. Med. Res. 2003, 31, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lasekan, J.B.; Koo, W.W.; Walters, J.; Neylan, M.; Luebbers, S. Growth, tolerance and biochemical measures in healthy infants fed a partially hydrolyzed rice protein-based formula: A randomized, blinded, prospective trial. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2006, 25, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Agostoni, C.; Fiocchi, A.; Riva, E.; Terracciano, L.; Sarratud, T.; Martelli, A.; Lodi, F.; D’Auria, E.; Zuccotti, G.V.; Giovanni, M.; et al. Growth of infants with IgE-mediated cow’s milk allergy fed different formulas in the complementary feeding period. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2007, 18, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Savino, F.; Castagno, E.; Monti, G.; Serraino, P.; Peltran, A.; Oggero, R.; Fanaro, S.; Vigi, V.; Silvestro, L. Z-score of weight for age of infants with atopic dermatitis and cow’s milk allergy fed with a rice-hydrolysate formula during the first two years of life. Acta Paediatr. Suppl. 2005, 94, 115–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Verduci, E.; Di Profio, E.; Cerrato, L.; Nuzzi, G.; Riva, L.; Vizzari, G.; D’Auria, E.; Gianni, M.L.; Zuccotti, G.; Peroni, D.G. Use of Soy-Based Formulas and Cow’s Milk Allergy: Lights and Shadows. Front. Pediatr. 2020, 8, 591988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vandenplas, Y.; Castrellon, P.G.; Rivas, R.; Gutiérrez, C.J.; Garcia, L.D.; Jimenez, J.E.; Anzo, A.; Hegar, B.; Alarcon, P. Safety of soya-based infant formulas in children. Br. J. Nutr. 2014, 111, 1340–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. USDA. USDA-Iowa State University Database on the Isoflavone Content of Foods; Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
  36. Fiocchi, A.; Restani, P.; Bernardini, R.; Lucarelli, S.; Lombardi, G.; Magazzù, G.; Marseglia, G.L.; Pittschieler, K.; Tripodi, K.; Troncone, R.; et al. A hydrolysed rice-based formula is tolerated by children with cow’s milk allergy: A multi-centre study. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2006, 36, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fiocchi, A.; Travaini, M.; D’Auria, E.; Banderali, G.; Bernardo, L.; Riva, E. Tolerance to a rice hydrolysate formula in children allergic to cow’s milk and soy. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2003, 33, 1576–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Reche, M.; Pascual, C.; Fiandor, A.; Polanco, I.; Rivero-Urgell, M.; Chifre, R.; Johnston, S.; Martin-Estaban, S. The effect of a partially hydrolysed formula based on rice protein in the treatment of infants with cow’s milk protein allergy. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2010, 21 Pt 1, 577–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Terracciano, L.; Bouygue, G.R.; Sarratud, T.; Veglia, F.; Martelli, A.; Fiocchi, A. Impact of dietary regimen on the duration of cow’s milk allergy: A random allocation study. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2010, 40, 637–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Zeiger, R.S.; Sampson, H.A.; Bock, S.A.; Burks, A.W.; Jr Harden, K.; Noone, S.; Martin, D.; Leung, S.; Wilson, D. Soy allergy in infants and children with IgE-associated cow’s milk allergy. J. Pediatr. 1999, 134, 614–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Klemola, T.; Vanto, T.; Juntunen-Backman, K.; Kalimo, K.; Korpela, R.; Varjonen, E. Allergy to soy formula and to extensively hydrolyzed whey formula in infants with cow’s milk allergy: A prospective, randomized study with a follow-up to the age of 2 years. J. Pediatr. 2002, 140, 219–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Klemola, T.; Kalimo, K.; Poussa, T.; Juntunen-Backman, K.; Korpela, R.; Valovirta, E.; Vanto, T. Feeding a soy formula to children with cow’s milk allergy: The development of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy to soy and peanuts. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2005, 16, 641–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kattan, J.D.; Cocco, R.R.; Järvinen, K.M. Milk and soy allergy. Pediatr. Clin. N. Am. 2011, 58, 407–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Vandenplas, Y.; Broekaert, I.; Domellöf, M.; Indrio, F.; Lapillonne, A.; Pienar, C.; Ribes-Koninckx, G.; Shamir, R.; Szajewska, H.; Thapar, N.; et al. An ESPGHAN position paper on the diagnosis, management and prevention of cow’s milk allergy. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2023, 10–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kuźmiński, A.; Przybyszewski, M.; Przybyszewska, J.; Ukleja-Sokołowska, N.; Pałgan, K.; Bartuzi, Z. Tree nut allergy. Postep. Dermatol. Alergol. 2021, 38, 544–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bedolla-Barajas, M.; Kestler-Gramajo, A.; Alcalá-Padilla, G.; Morales-Romero, J. Prevalence of oral allergy syndrome in children with allergic diseases. Allergol. Et Immunopathol. 2017, 45, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. McWilliam, V.L.; Perrett, K.P.; Dang, T.; Peters, R.L. Prevalence and natural history of tree nut allergy. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020, 124, 466–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Bakos, N.; Schöll, I.; Szalai, K.; Kundi, M.; Untersmayr, E.; Jensen-Jarolim, E. Risk assessment in elderly for sensitization to food and respiratory allergens. Immunol. Lett. 2006, 107, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kristjansson, I.; Ardal, B.; Jonsson, J.S.; Sigurdsson, J.A.; Foldevi, M.; Björkstén, B. Adverse reactions to food and food allergy in young children in Iceland and Sweden. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care 1999, 17, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Orhan, F.; Karakas, T.; Cakir, M.; Aksoy, A.; Baki, A.; Gedik, Y. Prevalence of immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergy in 6-9-year-old urban schoolchildren in the eastern Black Sea region of Turkey. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2009, 39, 1027–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Venter, C.; Pereira, B.; Grundy, J.; Clayton, C.B.; Roberts, G.; Higgins, B.; Dean, T. Incidence of parentally reported and clinically diagnosed food hypersensitivity in the first year of life. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2006, 117, 1118–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sicherer, S.H.; Munoz-Furlong, A.; Burks, A.W.; Sampson, H.A. Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the US determined by a random digit dial telephone survey. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 1999, 103, 559–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gupta, R.S.; Warren, C.M.; Smith, B.M.; Blumenstock, J.A.; Jiang, J.; Davis, M.M.; Nadeau, K.C. The Public Health Impact of Parent-Reported Childhood Food Allergies in the United States. Pediatrics 2018, 142, e20181235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. McWilliam, V.; Peters, R.; Tang, M.L.K.; Dharmage, S.; Ponsonby, A.L.; Gurrin, L.; Perrett, K.; Koplin, J.; Allen, K.J. Patterns of tree nut sensitization and allergy in the first 6 years of life in a population-based cohort. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2019, 143, 644–650.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ostblom, E.; Wickman, M.; van Hage, M.; Lilja, G. Reported symptoms of food hypersensitivity and sensitization to common foods in 4-year-old children. Acta Paediatr. 2008, 97, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Venter, C.; Pereira, B.; Voigt, K.; Grundy, J.; Clayton, C.B.; Higgins, B.; Arshad, S.H.; Dean, T. Prevalence and cumulative incidence of food hypersensitivity in the first 3 years of life. Allergy 2008, 63, 354–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Roberts, G.; Peckitt, C.; Northstone, K.; Strachan, D.; Lack, G.; Henderson, J.; Golding, J. Relationship between aeroallergen and food allergen sensitization in childhood. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2005, 35, 933–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sicherer, S.H.; Munoz-Furlong, A.; Godbold, J.H.; Sampson, H.A. US prevalence of self-reported peanut, tree nut, and sesame allergy: 11-year follow-up. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2010, 125, 1322–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Norbäck, D.; Wieslander, G. A Review on Epidemiological and Clinical Studies on Buckwheat Allergy. Plants 2021, 10, 607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Oh, J.W.; Pyun, B.Y.; Choung, J.T.; Ahn, K.M.; Kim, C.H.; Song, S.W.; Son, J.A.; Weon, J.H.; Kim, S.S.; Cho, H.J.; et al. Epidemiological change of atopic dermatitis and food allergy in school-aged children in Korea between 1995 and 2000. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2004, 19, 716–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Kim, M.; Lee, J.Y.; Jeon, H.-y.; Yang, H.-k.; Lee, K.-J.; Han, Y.; Kim, Y.H.; Kim, J.; Ahn, K. Prevalence of Immediate-Type Food Allergy in Korean Schoolchildren in 2015: A Nationwide, Population-based Study. Allergy Asthma Immunol. Res. 2017, 9, 410–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Takahashi, Y.; Ichikawa, S.; Aihara, Y.; Yokota, S. Buckwheat allergy in 90,000 school children in Yokohama. Arerugi 1998, 47, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  63. Norback DW, G. How common is buckwheat allergy in Sweden and China? In Proceedings of the Euro-Ibra 2015, European Regional IBRA Meeting, Luxemburg, 10–12 December 2015.
  64. Miyamoto, M.; Kato, M.; Yoshihara, S.; Terashi, Y.; Nakayama, K.; Takayanagi, F.; Ando, Y.; Fujita, Y.; Nakayama, M.; Yoshihara, S. Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome due to buckwheat: A case report. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2023, 51, 25–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Venter, C.; Smith, P.K.; Fleischer, D.M. Food allergy prevention: Where are we in 2023? Asia Pac. Allergy 2023, 13, 15–27. [Google Scholar]
  66. Du Toit, G.; Roberts, G.; Sayre, P.H.; Bahnson, H.T.; Radulovic, S.; Santos, A.F.; Brough, H.; Phippard, D.; Basting, M.; Feeney, M.; et al. Randomized trial of peanut consumption in infants at risk for peanut allergy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 803–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Palmer, D.J.; Metcalfe, J.; Makrides, M.; Gold, M.S.; Quinn, P.; West, C.E.; Loh, R.; Prescott, S.L. Early regular egg exposure in infants with eczema: A randomized controlled trial. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2013, 132, 387–392 e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Natsume, O.; Kabashima, S.; Nakazato, J.; Yamamoto-Hanada, K.; Narita, M.; Kondo, M.; Saito, M.L.; Kishino, A.; Takimoto, T.; Inoue, E.; et al. Two-step egg introduction for prevention of egg allergy in high-risk infants with eczema (PETIT): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2017, 389, 276–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Palmer, D.J.; Sullivan, T.R.; Gold, M.S.; Prescott, S.L.; Makrides, M. Randomized controlled trial of early regular egg intake to prevent egg allergy. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2017, 139, 1600–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Wei-Liang Tan, J.; Valerio, C.; Barnes, E.H.; Turner, P.J.; Van Asperen, P.A.; Kakakios, A.M.; Campbell, D. A randomized trial of egg introduction from 4 months of age in infants at risk for egg allergy. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2017, 139, 1621–1628.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Bellach, J.; Schwarz, V.; Ahrens, B.; Trendelenburg, V.; Aksunger, O.; Kalb, B.; Niggemann, B.; Keil, T.; Beyer, K. Randomized placebo-controlled trial of hen’s egg consumption for primary prevention in infants. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2017, 139, 1591–1599 e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Urashima, M.; Mezawa, H.; Okuyama, M.; Urashima, T.; Hirano, D.; Gocho, N.; Takimoto, H. Primary Prevention of Cow’s Milk Sensitization and Food Allergy by Avoiding Supplementation With Cow’s Milk Formula at Birth: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2019, 173, 1137–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sakihara, T.; Otsuji, K.; Arakaki, Y.; Hamada, K.; Sugiura, S.; Ito, K. Randomized trial of early infant formula introduction to prevent cow’s milk allergy. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2021, 147, 224–232.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Skjerven, H.O.; Lie, A.; Vettukattil, R.; Rehbinder, E.M.; LeBlanc, M.; Asarnoj, A.; Carlsen, K.; Despriee, A.W.; Fardig, M.; Gerdin, M.F.; et al. Early food intervention and skin emollients to prevent food allergy in young children (PreventADALL): A factorial, multicentre, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 2022, 399, 2398–2411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lachover-Roth, I.; Cohen-Engler, A.; Furman, Y.; Shachar, I.; Rosman, Y.; Meir-Shafrir, K.; Mozer-Mandel, M.; Farladansky-Gerschnabel, S.; Biron-Shentalk, T.; Mandel, M.; et al. Early, continuing exposure to cow’s milk formula and cow’s milk allergy: The COMEET study, a single center, prospective interventional study. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2023, 130, 233–239.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Quake, A.Z.; Liu, T.A.; D’Souza, R.; Jackson, K.G.; Woch, M.; Tetteh, A.; Sampath, V.; Nadeau, K.C.; Sindher, S.; Chinthrajah, R.S.; et al. Early Introduction of Multi-Allergen Mixture for Prevention of Food Allergy: Pilot Study. Nutrients 2022, 14, 737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Nishimura, T.; Fukazawa, M.; Fukuoka, K.; Okasora, T.; Yamada, S.; Kyo, S.; Homan, M.; Miura, T.; Nomura, Y.; Tsuchida, S.; et al. Early introduction of very small amounts of multiple foods to infants: A randomized trial. Allergol. Int. 2022, 71, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Scarpone, R.; Kimkool, P.; Ierodiakonou, D.; Leonardi-Bee, J.; Garcia-Larsen, V.; Perkin, M.R.; Boyle, R.J. Timing of Allergenic Food Introduction and Risk of Immunoglobulin E-Mediated Food Allergy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2023, 177, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Venter, C.; Maslin, K.; Holloway, J.W.; Silveira, L.J.; Fleischer, D.M.; Dean, T.; Arshad, S.H. Different Measures of Diet Diversity During Infancy and the Association with Childhood Food Allergy in a UK Birth Cohort Study. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pr. 2020, 8, 2017–2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Takase, T.; Nagao, M.; Kanai, R.; Nishida, T.; Arima, T.; Iwai, F.; Yamada, S.; Nakamoto, M.L.; Hirayama, M.; Fujisawa, T. Intake of allergenic foods at 1.5 years and 3 years of age in a general child population in Japan: A cross-sectional study. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2023, 28, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kajita, N.; Yoshida, K.; Morikawa, E.; Hirao, K.; Yokoyama, S.; Narita, M. Predictor of buckwheat allergy in children based on challenge test results: A retrospective observational study in Japan. Eur. Ann. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2022, 54, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Alves, P.B.; Pereira, H.P.; Alves, M.P.; Roseta, L.; Tavares, B.; Loureiro, G.; Carrapatoso, I.; Todo-Bom, A.; Regateiro, F.S. Predictors of anaphylaxis to peanut and tree nuts in a Mediterranean population. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2022, 43, 533–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Matias, J.; Gaspar, A.; Sokolova, A.; Borrego, L.M.; Piedade, S.; Pires, G.; Sampio, G.; Almeida, M.M. Tree Nuts Anaphylaxis in Preschool Age Children. Eur. Ann. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2020, 52, 182–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Abrams, E.M.; Primeau, M.N.; Kim, H.; Gerdts, J.; Chan, E.S. Increasing Awareness of the Low Risk of Severe Reaction at Infant Peanut Introduction: Implications During COVID-19 and Beyond. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pr. 2020, 8, 3259–3260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Tsuang, A.; Chan, E.S.; Wang, J. Food-Induced Anaphylaxis in Infants: Can New Evidence Assist with Implementation of Food Allergy Prevention and Treatment? J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pr. 2021, 9, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Abrams, E.M.; Brough, H.A.; Keet, C.; Shaker, M.S.; Venter, C.; Greenhawt, M. Pros and cons of pre-emptive screening programmes before peanut introduction in infancy. Lancet Child. Adolesc. Health 2020, 4, 526–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Turner, P.J.; Feeney, M.; Meyer, R.; Perkin, M.R.; Fox, A.T. Implementing primary prevention of food allergy in infants: New BSACI guidance published. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2018, 48, 912–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Summary of prospective clinical studies using hydrolyzed rice formula.
Table 1. Summary of prospective clinical studies using hydrolyzed rice formula.
StudyNumber of Study Participants Age of ParticipantsStudy Duration Classification of Infants Included in the StudyNumber of Study Participants Receiving Rice HydrolysateNumber of Study Participants Receiving Other FormulasNumber of Participants in Control Groups
Randomized [29]166–16 months6 monthsCMA88 soy
Randomized [30]802 days4 monthsHealthy3233 cow’s milk
Randomized [31]1605 months6 monthsCMA3031 extensively hydrolyzed
32 soy		32 breastfed
Non-randomized
[32]		8829–25 months2 yearsCMA1526 extensively hydrolyzed
17 soy		30 healthy
No control [28]40<6 months6 monthsCMA40NA
Legend: This table provides an overview of studies conducted on infants using rice hydrolysates. All these studies reported that the rice hydrolysates supported normal growth in study participants. Abbreviations: CMA: cow’s milk allergy; NA—no data available.
Table 2. Prevalence of almond sensitization, self-reported symptoms, self-reported clinical diagnosis, or clinical diagnosis of almond allergy based on good clinical history supported by sensitization or oral food challenge.
Table 2. Prevalence of almond sensitization, self-reported symptoms, self-reported clinical diagnosis, or clinical diagnosis of almond allergy based on good clinical history supported by sensitization or oral food challenge.
CountryAge of Study ParticipantsSensitization—SPT
(% with a Positive SPT)		Sensitization—IgE
(% with Positive Specific IgE Levels)		Self-Reported ReactionsSelf-Reported Reactions Based on a Clinical DiagnosisSensitization (Positive SPT or Specific IgE Levels and Good Clinical History of Allergic Reaction)Positive OFC
Hungary [48]20–69 yearsNANANANANANA
Hungary [48]60–97 yearsNA0 (0–0.42)NANANANA
Iceland [49]18 monthsNANA0
(0–1.5)		NA0 (0–1.5)NA
Sweden [49]18 monthsNANA0
(0–1.4)		NA0 (0–1.4)NA
Sweden [55]4 yearsNANA3.8
(3.1–4.7)		NANANA
Turkey
[50]		6–9 years0NA0NANA0
United Kingdom [51]1 yearNANANANANA0
(0–0.5) n = 900
United Kingdom [56]2 yearsNANANANANA0
(0–0.6)
United Kingdom [56]3 years0.3
(0.0–1.2)		NANANANA0.2
(0.0–0.9)
United Kingdom [57]7 years0.5
(0.2–0.9)		NANANANA
United States [52]>18 yearsNANANA0.9
(0.7–1.1)		NANA
United States [58]≥18 yearsNANANA1.6
(1.4–1.9)		NANA
United States [53]All children < 18 yearsNANANA0.7 (0.6–0.8)NANA
United States [53]Infants < 1 yearNANANA0.2 (0.1–0.5)NANA
Australia [54]6 yearsNANANA0.3 (0.1–0.5)NA0.3 (0.1–0.5)
Table legend: This table provides a summary of all population-based studies reporting on almond sensitization, self-reported symptoms, self-reported clinical diagnosis, or clinical diagnosis of almond allergy based on good clinical history supported by sensitization or oral food challenge. Abbreviations: NA—no data available; OFC—oral food challenge; SPT—skin prick test.
Table 3. Prevalence of self-reported allergic reactions to buckwheat.
Table 3. Prevalence of self-reported allergic reactions to buckwheat.
CountryAge of Study ParticipantsSensitization—SPT
(% with a Positive SPT)		Sensitization—IgE
(% with Positive Specific IgE Levels)		Self-Reported ReactionsSelf-Reported Reactions Based on a Clinical DiagnosisSensitization (Positive SPT or Specific IgE Levels and Good Clinical History of Allergic Reaction)Positive OFC
Korea [60]12–15 yearsNANA0.1 (0.1–0.2)NANANA
Korea [60]6–12 yearsNANA0.1 (0.1–0.1)NANANA
Korea [61]6–16 yearsNANA0.3NANANA
Japan [62]5–10 yearsNANA0.22NANANA
China [63]13–21 yearsNANA0.4NANANA
Table legend: This table provides a summary of all population-based studies reporting self-reported symptoms to buckwheat. There are currently no studies available reporting on population-based sensitization, self-reported clinical diagnosis, or clinical diagnosis based on good clinical history supported by sensitization or oral food challenge. Abbreviations: NA—no data available; OFC—oral food challenge; SPT—skin prick test.
Table 4. Summary of randomized controlled trials of early allergenic food introduction for food allergy prevention adapted from [65].
Table 4. Summary of randomized controlled trials of early allergenic food introduction for food allergy prevention adapted from [65].
Study AcronymFull Study TitleStudy TypePopulation Included Food Allergen Introduction InterventionPrimary OutcomeResults
LEAP
(UK) [66] 		Learning Early About Peanut AllergyNon-blinded RCT
(n = 640)		High-risk infants with
moderate to severe eczema and/or egg allergy		Thrice-weekly consumption of 2 g of peanut protein vs. complete avoidance of peanut after randomization at 4–11 months, through 60 months of lifeIgE-mediated peanut allergy based on OFC at month 60ITT analysis showed prevalence of peanut allergy of 13.7% in the avoidance group vs. 1.9% in the consumption group (p < 0.001)
STAR
(Australia) [67] 		Solids Timing for Allergy ReductionBlinded RPCT
(n = 86)		High-risk infants with moderate to severe eczemaDaily consumption of 0.9 g raw whole egg powder (0.4 g protein/day) vs. placebo powder from 4 to 8 months of age
Cooked egg consumption from 8 months onwards		IgE-mediated egg allergy at 12 months based on positive SPT and egg OFCStudy was terminated early as 1/3 of patients reacted to egg during entry OFC
At 12 months, 33% had egg allergy in egg consumption group vs. 51% in control (not significant)
PETIT
(Japan) [68]		Preventing egg allergy in infants with ADBlinded RCT
(n = 121)		High-risk infants with atopic dermatitisDaily consumption of 50 mg heated egg from 6 to 9 months
Daily consumption of 250 mg heated egg from 9 to 12 months		IgE-mediated egg allergy at 12 months of age based on OFCPrevalence of egg allergy was 37.7% in placebo vs. 8.3% in egg consumption group (p = 0.0013)
No SAEs were reported
STEP
(Australia) [69]		Starting Time for Egg ProteinBlinded RPCT
(n = 820)		Intermediate risk:
atopic mothers (allergic disease + positive envir SPT
Infants: no allergic diagnosis		Daily consumption of 0.9 g raw whole egg powder (0.4 g protein/day) vs. placebo powder from 4 to 6.5 monthsIgE-mediated egg allergy at 12 months based on positive SPT and egg OFCNo significant differences in egg allergy between the groups
No anaphylactic reactions were reported during initial egg introduction
BEAT
(Australia) [70]		Beating Egg Allergy TrialBlinded RPCT
(n = 319)		Intermediate risk:
infants with 1st degree relative with atopy
Infants: neg egg SPT		Daily consumption of 350 mg raw, whole egg protein vs. placebo powder from 4 months of age
Cooked egg from 8 months of age		Sensitization to egg by SPT at 12 months of ageSubjects in egg consumption group had significantly less egg sensitization (10.7% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.03) than the placebo group
No anaphylactic reactions were reported during initial egg introduction
HEAP
(Germany) [71]		Hens Egg Allergy PreventionBlinded RPCT
(n = 406)		Normal-risk general population
Infants with IgE < 0.35 kU/L at enrollment 		Thrice-weekly consumption of 2.5 g egg protein from 4 to 6 months of age until 12 monthsSensitization to egg based on egg IgE ≥ 0.35 kU/L at 12 months of ageNo significant different in egg allergy between the egg consumption (2.1%) and the placebo (0.6%) groups
High rate of anaphylaxis during egg introduction at entry experienced
ABC Trial
(Japan) [72]		Atopy Induced by Breastfeeding or Cow’s Milk FormulaNon-blinded
RCT
(n = 312)		Intermediate risk:
infants with 1st degree relative with atopy		Subjects were randomized to 2 interventions:
(1) Active group: breast milk (BF) and/or cow’s milk (CMF) in first 3 days of life
(2) Placebo group: BF and/or amino acid (EF)-based formula in first 3 days 		Primary outcome:
Sensitization to cow’s milk at 24 months
Secondary outcomes: IgE-mediated milk allergy at 24 months based on OFC		Sensitization and cow’s milk allergy lower in the BF/EF group vs. the BF plus CMF group (relative risk 0.52 [sensitization] and 0.2 [cow’s milk allergy])
SPADE
(Japan) [73]		Strategy for Prevention of Milk Allergy by Daily Ingestion of Infant Formula in Early InfancyNon-blinded RCT
(n = 518)		Normal-risk general populationSubjects were randomized between 1 and 2 months of age to daily consumption of at least 10 mL of cow’s milk formula (CMF) or avoidance of CM (soy formula)
Ongoing breastfeeding recommended until 6 months of age		IgE-mediated milk allergy at 6 months of age based on OFCITT analysis showed that 2/242 in the ingestion-group (0.8%) vs. 17/249 in the avoidance group (6.8%) had milk allergy (p < 0.001)
No SAEs were reported during the screening OFC
EAT
(UK) [11] 		Enquiring About ToleranceNon-blinded RCT
(n = 1303)		Normal risk:
exclusively breastfed until allergenic foods introduced		The early introduction group (EIG) introduced 2 g of peanut, cooked egg, cow’s milk, sesame, whitefish, wheat protein twice weekly at 3 months
The standard introduction group (SIG) followed UK guidance to start introduction of solid foods from 6 months of age		IgE-mediated food allergy to at least 1 of the 6 allergens at 1 or 3 years of age based on OFC ITT analysis showed no difference in food allergy between EIG (5.6%) vs. SIG (6.1%) (p = 0.32)
PP analysis showed significantly less prevalence of peanut allergy (p = 0.003) and egg allergy (p = 0.009) in EIG vs. SIG
PreventADALL
(Norway, Sweden) [74]		Preventing Atopic Dermatitis and ALLergies Non-blindedRCT
(n = 2397)		Normal-risk general populationRandomized to 4 intervention groups: (1) no intervention; (2) skin; (3) food; (4) combined skin and food.
Food: introduction of peanut, cow’s milk, egg, and wheat from 3 months of age vs. no specific advice on food intro		IgE-mediated peanut, cow’s milk, egg, or wheat allergy at 36 months of age based of OFCITT analysis showed prevalence of food allergy reduced in food intervention group compared to no food intervention group: risk difference −1.6% [95% CI −2.7 to −0.5]; OR 0.4, [95% CI 0.2 to 0.8]
Reduced risk of food allergy was seen with peanut but not with other 3 foods
COMEET
Israel [75]		Early, continuing exposure to cow’s milk formula and cow’s milk allergyAllocated based on parental preference of feeding
(n = 1992)		Normal-risk general populationStudy subjects were allocated to either (1) exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) or (2) at least 1 feed with CMF (+/− breastfeeding) daily for the first 2 months of life IgE-mediated cow’s milk allergy by 12 months of age CMA was defined as having at least 2 of 3 criteria: (1) positive OFC (2) sensitization to cow’s milk (3) clear history of immediate reactionsIgE-mediated CMA was 1.58% in the EBF group vs. 0 in “mixed feeding” group (p < 0.001)
IgE-mediated CMA was 0.7% in the per-protocol EBF group vs. 3.27% in breastfed infants with irregular cow’s milk exposure in first 2 months
Japan [7]Early introduction of very small amounts of multiple foods to infantsBlinded RCT
(n = 163)		High-risk
infants with atopic dermatitis		Study subjects were randomized to either (1) mixed-food-allergen powder which contained egg, milk, wheat, soybean, buckwheat, and peanuts, or (2) placebo powder at 3–4 months.
The mixed-allergen powder contained 2.5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 20 mg of each food allergen plus probiotics—infants increased doses every 2 weeks		IgE-mediated food allergies up to 18 months
Food allergy was defined as
- sensitized to the food plus
- clear history of reactions and/or a positive OFC		Food allergy was significantly lower in the mixed-powder group by 18 months vs. the placebo group (7/83 vs. 19/80, p = 0.0066)
US [76]Early Introduction of Multi-Allergen Mixture for Prevention of Food Allergy: Pilot StudyNon-blinded RCT (n = 180)General populationInfants were randomized to eat (1) single-food-allergen powder (milk, egg, or peanut at 300 mg protein per day: 2100 mg protein/food allergen/week) vs. (2) two-food-allergen powder (milk/egg, egg/peanut, milk/peanut at 300 mg per mix per day: 1050 mg protein/food allergen/week) vs. (3) a multiple-food-allergen mix of 10 different food allergens (milk/egg/peanut/cashew/almond/shrimp/walnut/wheat/salmon/hazelnut)ba at 3.1) low [300 mg per day: 21 (3 mg × 7) mg/food allergen/week], 3.2) medium [63 (9 mg × 7) mg/food allergen/week], or 3.3) high doses [210 (30 mg × 7) mg/food allergen/week]) vs. no early introduction at 4–6 monthsIgE-mediated food allergy at 2 and 4 years
using OFC		Study participants in all three mixes of the 10 food allergens, irrespective of the dose, were significantly more likely to consume 8 g food allergen protein than the other groups (q < 0.01)
Legend: This table provides a summary of current studies which conducted studies on early introduction of food allergens, giving an overview of study methodology and outcomes. Abbreviations: OFC, oral food challenge; SPT, skin prick test; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RPCT, randomized, placebo-controlled trial; ITT, intention-to-treat; CMA, cow’s milk allergy; AD, atopic dermatitis; SAE, serious adverse event.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Venter, C.; Shamir, R.; Fleischer, D.M. Early Introduction of Novel and Less-Studied Food Allergens in the Plant-Based Era: Considerations for US and EU Infant Formula Regulations. Nutrients 2023, 15, 4530. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15214530

AMA Style

Venter C, Shamir R, Fleischer DM. Early Introduction of Novel and Less-Studied Food Allergens in the Plant-Based Era: Considerations for US and EU Infant Formula Regulations. Nutrients. 2023; 15(21):4530. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15214530

Chicago/Turabian Style

Venter, Carina, Raanan Shamir, and David Mark Fleischer. 2023. "Early Introduction of Novel and Less-Studied Food Allergens in the Plant-Based Era: Considerations for US and EU Infant Formula Regulations" Nutrients 15, no. 21: 4530. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15214530

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop