OMG! And you know what, I heard that before this, she didn’t feed her child with a bottle like normal people, but let the baby lick up stuff that just oozed out of the mother’s chest. Gross, right?
I also heard that sometimes she and her husband would get so close to each other that their mouths touched and they’d get spit on each other. Ewwww!!
I’ve heard other rumours about what her and her husband did, but frankly, I don’t believe them because it’s just too gross to possibly believe.
Seriously, is anyone who’s actually changed a diaper or even french kissed another person really disturbed by this? You’re not grossed out by French kissing someone unrelated to you, but a mother chewing food for the baby that came out of her own body is so sick that the thought of it upsets your stomach? Is it that this seems somehow sexual to you? I don’t get the revulsion.
I’m concerned from a health perspective, and I think a lot of that “revulsion” other people are feeling is their subconscious risk assessment ringing some bells. And while I think “revulsion” is a stupid reason to counsel anyone against anything, if you actually know stuff about the way diseases are transmitted, this is one time when “revulsion” is actually supported by science.
Doesn’t upset *my *stomach. May rot her kid’s teeth, give him HIV or hepatitis or herpes or canker sores or a common cold, though. Any benefits are highly theoretical, not supported by science and don’t even have a proposed mechanism by which those benefits would accrue. Does that not give you at least momentary pause?
But you’re right in so far as there’s something here that was pinging my “questionable parenting” meter and I just couldn’t place my finger on it. Turns out it’s entirely unrelated to disease transmission. It is this: parents are their babies primary teachers. Babies learn by example, and she’s teaching him a way of eating which is socially unacceptable and physically dangerous. Aspiration (choking) is a huge risk, especially with his head tilted back like that, and what’s going to happen when this little cutie is just a bit older and wants to feed his little cousin like Mommy feeds him? Or a classmate at daycare?
So there. We’ve got disease transmission, cavities, social consequences and choking on the “risk” side of the equation. On the “benefit” side we have it’s cute (I guess, since she laughs she seems to be enjoying it), and you have fewer dishes to wash and maybe, if there are any beneficial oral flora, maybe mom can give hers to the baby assuming hers are any good to begin with. Oh, and maybe it will increase the kid’s immunity, maybe.
In case you’ve had some flashback to 1981, HIV has is not passed by saliva. HIV spread by mouth-to-mouth contact is in theoretically possible, but there the suspected cases are in the single digits. It simply doesn’t happen. In any case, I see no reason to assume Ms. Silverstone has any blood-borne diseases. Most mothers are pretty aware if they have a raging HIV infection.
Interestingly, I read an article saying that there is suspicion that a rise in genital herpes is being caused by improved sanitation. In most cases, if you get cold sores, you will be immune from genital herpes caused by that strain (which can cross over, but doesn’t usually). It takes a week or two to build up that immunity. This is why we don’t all have herpes despite both cold sores and oral sex being common. But with better sanitation, fewer kids are exposed to cold sores before they reach sexual maturity. This means they stand a pretty good chance of being first exposed to herpes in a genital context before they’ve build any immunity from oral exposure. So getting gential herpes from oral sex has become a much larger risk.
As for social acceptability…come off it. Do you think it’d somehow be better for the kid to “play food” with his classmates by shoving pointed metal things in their face, because that is the “socially acceptable way” of eating?
Everyone takes needless risks with their kids. One of the biggest ways kids die is in car crashes, but we think nothing of strapping them in for entirely optional trips. Taking the kid to the park is probably exposing it to much more needless risk than this practice.
It suits her, it’s legal, the kid seems happy enough and it’s not actually that unheard of of a practice. Who cares?
She is hoping everyone cares. She posted it on her website in which she tries to portray herself as an expert on healthy and green living. It is not something she is doing in the privacy of her own home and nothing else. As soon as she puts it out there as a pundit then it is fair game to criticize. I am able to form an opinion and criticize on a wide range of topics without caring deeply.
Trouble is, the kid doesn’t have a choice either. What I want to see is her continuing this practice when her son is a teenager. That would raise some eyebrows!
Point the first: no, many mothers are not aware if they have a raging HIV infection. The CDC estimate for those infected who don’t know it is 30% for all populations, and some subpopulations it’s higher than 50%.
Point the second: not talking about saliva. If you’d read the linked article upthread, at least one child has contracted HIV from premastication because his caregiver had bleeding gums. Considering that 50-100% of adults who have teeth have gingival disease which can cause bleeding gums, that’s not an insignificant risk.
I would love to see that study, actually. 'Cause I’ve got a stepmother with herpes who would really like to kiss her grandkids when she tucks them in at night, but since that’s how she got herpes (from her mother), we don’t do that in our family.
Um, yes, absolutely, in our culture. At least, rounded plastic things, which most toy utensils in The Kitchen Corner at daycare are. Sure, there’s the risk that he’ll put someone’s eye out, but proper supervision minimizes that risk. Proper supervision doesn’t reduce the risk of choking on a bolus of food blown into your mouth while your head is tilted backwards.
So you really think there is any meaningful chance of Alicia Silverstone being unknowingly HIV positive?
If she was a homeless drug user who got knocked up turning tricks in New York? Sure. But she’s a health-conscious well-off celebrity mother, who has almost certainly been under the care of a doctor through her pregnancy, and HIV tests are a pretty standard part of pre-natal care.
I don’t see how anyone didn’t jump to the same conclusion as you do about antivax. It’s the exact same thought process. Some woo convinces people that it helps their kids, and yet it’s actually dangerous to their health. Some celebrity promotes this idea, and yet people on this messageboard are actually defending her.
I never thought I’d see the day where people on the Straight Dope Message Board say, “Let her believe the woo if she wants to.”
I think she’s had more *access *to sexual partners (growing up in SF, possibly even men who have sex with men) and injected drugs than I have. We can assume she’s been sexually active at least once, since she has a child, so I know she has a greater risk than some. Lower risk than others. That’s entirely not the point.
The point is she’s posting this on her website and drawing attention to it as a parenting technique she thinks is a good idea for other people to try. The question isn’t whether or not Alicia Silverstone has HIV (I agree, she probably doesn’t, but I do bet she’s had a cold once or twice), the question is does Alicia Silverstone have any sort of background in public health, pediatrics, nursing or any other field which gives her legal, moral or ethical authority to tell people how to feed their children? And does Alicia Silverstone know that only HIV- people will be watching her video?
Sure, she can post it. And I can post why it’s a dangerous practice.
Not every parenting choice shares equal risks, and I am determined to let people know the risks so they can make informed decisions. If you’re HIV- (not just “not had a positive test”, but actually tested, found negative and have had no risk factors since then) and don’t have herpes or hepatitis and have never had a cavity and never get a cold…well, then I guess all I have to say is for love of small children, don’t let them cock their heads backward and drop clumps of food in there, because it’s still a choking hazard. At least get their heads upright and into a normal anatomical position for swallowing.
Well, Hollywood actors are obviously well informed on environmental concerns and foreign policy. Surely they’re also experts on public health and pediatrics.
Even if this is bad for the baby’s health, I still see two big differences between this and opposition to vaccinations. First of all, not vaccinating is almost certainly a lot worse for the kid’s health than mouth-feeding is. And second, a parent mouth-feeding her child is only endangering that one child, while a parent refusing to vaccinate is endangering all children. You could argue, I suppose, that Silverstone’s advocacy for this practice is endangering other children, but frankly, I can’t see the sense in anyone taking an entertainer’s advice seriously on any issue.
Yeah, I have to agree that the likelihood of her having HIV or Hep B and not knowing it is extremely low, assuming she had prenatal care. They test you up one side and down the other when you’re pregnant.
My only concerns are that, AFAIK, it’s not at all necessary to feed babies mashed-up food by any means, so why bother, and as **WhyNot **stated, the issue of colonizing the baby with strep mutans and causing cavities. Just breastfeed full term, and when they are physically able let them fool around with appropriate (non-chokeable) bits of your own meal.
Actually, many mothers in the “natural birth” community do not undergo many forms of prenatal testing as a matter of principle. I don’t know about Ms. Silverstone, but I know women who feel that all the testing is imposed upon us to make us fear pregnancy and to further medicalize the condition. In my wider social circle, there are at least a few moms who have used lay midwives, had homebirths in the bathtub, and skipped the recommended prenatal testing. These are the same women who would likely think it’s “perfectly natural” to pre-masticate. Maybe Alicia is “clean,” but she’s promoting the practice to a larger crowd who may have some nasty bugs lurking under the surface.
For the record, I had a midwife-assisted hospital birth and only skipped the more invasive testing (amniocentesis, etc), and I just secretly sit back and think they’re nuts. As as RN, I’m part of The Establishment, so I cannot be taken seriously by the suburban hippie/urban bohemian crowds. I rarely bought baby food and mostly fed my little gal pureed/mashed produce and mushy stuff until her teeth came in. Easy peasy.
WhyNot has (as usual) already filled in my thoughts on the subject. Many babies are first introduced to harmful cavity-causing bacteria by their mothers tasting the baby food/cereal to make sure it’s the right temperature. Overview here, and the ADA also discourages saliva sharing.
For all of those who are like, “this is standard fare in some developing countries” (and clearly they have their shit together) and think it’s absurd to suggest that poor villagers use blenders, please address drastic_quench’s post above where she suggests a number of low-tech alternatives to softening food, including mortar and pestle or water. Cause that was the first thing I thought of when I read about this.
Plus, I’m thinking that anywhere “developing” enough to not have blenders still has knives. I’ve seen some of those Balinese women go to town with a big ol’ knife and a hunk of pork - they can break it down into something as fine as the finest ground pork in the supermarket, and in seconds! (Um, not that they don’t have blenders in Bali, just that’s where I’ve seen impressive kitchen machete work with my own eyes.)
And how are their old people without teeth eating? The idea that there’s no way to make baby food except your mouth is just ridiculous.
