Childbirth charities, including the National Childbirth Trust (NCT) and the Lullaby Trust, have issued warnings about the dangers of hands-free breastfeeding or bottle feeding when a baby is carried in a sling. Their updated guidance highlights the risks, especially for premature babies and those under four months old, due to the potential for airway obstruction.

This warning follows an inquest into the tragic death of six-week-old Jimmy Alderman, who was being breastfed in a baby carrier at home. The coroner’s report found that there was little publicly available information on the safe positioning of babies in slings or the risk of suffocation while feeding.

The Tragic Case That Prompted the Warning

In October 2023, Jimmy Alderman, an infant from London, was breastfed while in a sling but was positioned too far down, leading to a blocked airway within five minutes. Despite immediate resuscitation efforts, he passed away three days later.

Senior coroner for west London, Lydia Brown, noted the absence of clear visual guidance on safe versus unsafe baby postures in slings. She pointed out that existing NHS literature offered no guidance or warnings on this issue.

How Have Charities Responded?

Following the coroner’s report and feedback from Jimmy’s parents, the NCT reviewed its online information regarding baby slings and carriers. The updated guidance explicitly states that hands-free feeding while moving around is unsafe, particularly for:

• Babies under four months old
• Premature babies
• Babies with underlying health conditions

The Lullaby Trust has also revised its advice, now recommending that babies should always be removed from the sling before feeding. CEO Jenny Ward explained, “We are constantly reviewing the evidence and research, as there is currently no robust evidence on how to feed hands-free safely, which is why we changed our guidance to advise against it.”

Why Is Hands-Free Feeding in Slings Dangerous?

Young babies lack strong neck muscles and cannot lift their heads independently. If a baby’s head tilts forward or is pressed against fabric, their airway can become blocked, leading to suffocation within minutes. Additional risks include:

Fabric Obstruction: The sling or a caregiver’s clothing can press against the baby’s face, preventing proper breathing.

Incorrect Sling Fitting: A poorly adjusted carrier may cause the baby’s body to slump, further restricting airflow.

Head Trauma: Babies in improperly secured slings may suffer head injuries if they fall or experience sudden movements.

How to Use Baby Slings Safely

While baby slings can be a convenient way to carry an infant, proper positioning is crucial for safety. The NCT and NHS recommend the following guidelines:

• The sling should be tight enough to keep the baby secure.
• The baby’s face should always be visible when glancing down.
• The baby should be upright, facing outwards, not pressed against the caregiver’s body.
• The baby’s head should be close enough to kiss.
• The material should never cover the baby’s nose or mouth.

Future Research and Ongoing Safety Efforts

In response to concerns raised by parents and medical professionals, the Lullaby Trust is helping to fund research aimed at developing clearer safety guidelines for baby slings and carriers. The goal is to provide better information for parents and caregivers to prevent similar tragedies.

Additionally, the NHS advises parents to ensure that sling fabric does not cover their baby’s head and to remain attentive to their infant’s breathing while using a carrier.

A new research from the University of Southern California (USC) has made a crucial new discovery regarding Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), highlighting the vital, yet often unexamined, connection between gut health and brain activity. The research, published in Nature Communications, highlights how children with autism may be experiencing metabolic disorders due to gut imbalance, which in turn affect the manufacture of neurotransmitters, and as a result, have an impact on behavior linked to the condition.

By current estimates around the world—1% of the world's population suffers from ASD, emerging findings such as these provide promise for more specific and effective treatments.

The idea that brain and gut constantly communicate with one another is no longer speculative; it's an essential biological truth. The gut-brain axis, a highly evolved, two-way communication network, involves neural, hormonal, and immunological signaling pathways. Interestingly, the gut possesses its own nervous system, the enteric nervous system, and it contains more neurons than the spinal cord.

We demonstrated how gut metabolites affect the brain, and also how the brain affects behavior," says Professor Lisa Aziz-Zadeh, lead author on the USC study and researcher for USC's Brain and Creativity Institute. "Essentially, the brain is the middleman between autism behavior and gut health.".

About 90% of the neural communications between gut and brain go in the direction from gut to brain, and not the other way around, suggesting that gut health may have a more predominant role in dictating emotions and behavior than is currently accepted.

Gut-Brain Connection in Autism

The USC study recruited 84 children aged 8 to 17—43 with autism and 41 neurotypical controls. Researchers collected behavioral information, conducted brain scans, and analyzed stool samples to examine gut metabolites. Of note was the "tryptophan pathway," which degrades the amino acid tryptophan to synthesize serotonin and other neuroactive compounds.

Since serotonin is needed for emotional regulation, socialization, and learning—and 90% of it is produced in the gut—results point to the huge impact that gut health can have on brain function. Abnormality in serotonin production through the imbalance of gut microbes has a direct link with normal ASD symptoms, including social challenges and repetitive behavior.

Gut Microbe Imbalances Could Predict A Child's Risk For Autism

Children with ASD also frequently present with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms—constipation, diarrhea, bloating, and gastroesophageal reflux—frequently more than their neurotypical peers. They are not mere comorbidities, but could very likely be part of the pathology of ASD.

"The gut-brain axis may offer a way to explain the overlap of GI and behavioral symptoms," adds Sofronia Ringold, a USC doctoral student and study coauthor. "If we can reach the gut, we may also be able to influence behavior and thought."

This is where the tryptophan pathway plays a crucial role. Gut bacteria determine the metabolism of tryptophan, and as a result, serotonin production is influenced, and brain activity linked to autism-related behavior may be altered.

What Triggers Autism?

ASD has also been shown to result from a combination of epigenetic, genetic, and environmental factors. It has been linked with immune dysregulation, raised inflammatory cytokine levels, and complications during birth. However, the gut is increasingly being identified as a potentially modifiable factor in this intricate web.

Children with ASD typically possess higher levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and TNF-α, which may be responsible for breaking gut permeability and perpetuating a cycle of gut and brain inflammation.

Further, gut microbial dysbiosis—a distortion of the gut microbiome—has been shown to reduce microbial diversity and compromise intestinal barrier integrity. This can promote "leaky gut" conditions that allow toxic chemicals to enter the bloodstream and become transported to the brain, where they may trigger or exacerbate symptoms of ASD.

Treating ASD

While current treatments for ASD are largely behavioral interventions and, in some cases, medication, the study sets the stage for non-invasive treatments. These include microbiota-targeted treatments such as probiotics, diet, and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT).

Probiotics, for instance, have already shown promise in improving neurotransmitter production and cognitive function. But more stringent, extended trials need to be conducted to ascertain their safety and efficacy as a treatment for the symptoms of ASD.

One of the biggest challenges remains in addressing ARFID (Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder), which affects children with autism. This feeding style reduces food diversity and also complicates the restoration of microbial balance with diet alone.

The USC research adds to a growing global effort to understand ASD from a more holistic view. As the number of autism diagnoses continues to grow, especially in developing countries where awareness and resources are still emerging, this research can inform future recommendations for treating the condition more holistically—starting not just with the brain but the gut.

A recent British Medical Journal (BMJ) study challenges the widely discussed idea of banning smartphones and social media among children. While such bands are often introduced with the intention of protecting or safeguarding the young minds, researchers have found this approach is unrealistic and also is ineffective in the longer run.

Why Won't The Ban Work?

The BMJ study rightly points out that an outright ban on smartphones and social media would do little to nothing to prepare children for the digital world that they would inevitably be growing up in. While there are some countries that support bans to protect children from the potential harm, the experts of this study stress that there is little to no evidence showing such bans will actually improve children's well-being.

The evaluation of school smartphone policies in England revealed that limiting smartphone during school hours did not lead to any benefits. there was no improvement in student's mental health, physical activity levels, sleep, academic performance, or even in classroom behaviors. Moreover, the restrictions did not lead to reduced overall phone use or a drop in problematic social media habits outside the school.

So, What Can Be Done Instead?

Is there really a right approach to this? Well, experts suggest that instead of imposing bans, one must advocate for rights-based strategy. This is also rooted in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This approach emphasizes the need to educate children about technology and guide their unsafe to help them understand the responsibility as digital citizens.

According to the study, this means designing digital experiences that are age-appropriate and creating policies that prioritize both protection and participation. Children should be taught how to use technology in a healthy way rather than be kept away from it altogether.

Digital literacy is important as technology is a permanent fixture in today's world. If you try to remove it entirely from a child's life, it would be practical. It could also leave them unequipped to navigate the digital world later on. The authors of the study also argue that while it is important to create tech-free spaces and moments, blanket restrictions are just temporary fixes. They do not help in fostering meaningful, long-term habits that support children's development.

Instead, the goal should be to ensure that children can use digital tools responsibly across various environments—be it school, home, or public spaces—while also protecting their mental and emotional well-being.

How Can You Make Your Child's Digital Experience Safer?

The best approach for this is to build a safe digital ecosystem. For this rights-based approach to work, the study also suggests that immediate efforts must be made. They must be directed toward improving legislation that holds tech companies accountable for child-friendly digital design.

There is also a need for professional training and guidance for parents, teachers, and schools so they can also support children in building healthy tech habits. While the challenges in the changing current systems and mindsets are being acknowledged, the authors of the study pointed out that this strategy is more sustainable and effective in the longer run.

A new study published in JAMA Network Open throws light on a concerning link between early-life exposure to ozone pollution and the risk of developing asthma and wheezing in young children. The findings also point out the importance of monitoring air quality, especially for the kids, infants, and toddlers, as it is critical for their early developmental stages.

What Did The Study Look At?

They study examined data from 1,188 children across 5 US states, including Washington, Minnesota, New York, California, and Tennessee. These participants were drawn from three cohorts within the National Institutes for Health's Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program.

The children included were all exposed to modest levels of ozone between their birth till the age of 2. The more important thing to note is that nearly 82% of their mothers had no history of asthma, which also clarifies that the increased asthma risk in these children is not genetically related.

Asthma And Wheezing

Among the children who were studied, 12.3% were diagnosed with asthma between the age of 4 to 6, 15.8% f them also experienced wheezing during this time frame. Whereas children who were slightly older, aged between 8 or 9, the rated of asthma and persistent wheezing was lower, only about 9.4% and 8.3% respectively.

Though the decrease in symptoms as children aged was unexpected, researchers were able to note that even short-term health impacts in early childhood can often lead to significant healthcare costs and challenges for families.

What Are The Health Risk With Ozone Levels?

The children who were analyzed for this study were exposed to an average of 26.1 parts per billion (ppb) of ozone during their early years. To compare it with, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set the eight-hour ozone exposure threshold at 70 ppb. Although, the children's exposure was well below this limit, the researchers noted that at every 2 ppb increase in ozone levels, 31% of higher risk of developing early asthma and 30% of developing wheezing was associated.

This suggested that even the modest levels of ozone, which is well under the federal standards, can be harmful. It is even more so for the vulnerable populations like young children.

Why Is Ground-Level Ozone A Concern?

Unlike stratospheric ozone, which forms a protective layer against the sun’s ultraviolet radiation, ground-level ozone is a harmful pollutant. It forms when pollutants from vehicles, factories, and other sources react with sunlight. The EPA notes that ozone pollution is more likely to reach dangerous levels on hot, sunny days, but it can also be problematic in cooler weather.

Ozone is the air pollutant that most frequently exceeds national safety guidelines, making it a widespread concern. Given its prevalence, researchers stress the importance of understanding how early-life exposure impacts health outcomes.

What Does This Mean For The Public And Their Health?

The study lead, Logan Dearborn, a doctoral student at the University of Washington during the research also highlighted the broader implication of these findings. Even if the effects of ozone are seen mostly in early childhood, they can carry long-term consequences. This is true for both in terms of health and family stress.

“There are all sorts of larger contextual factors about having this chronic disease at any point in life,” Dearborn said in a news release.