Blog

3

Ancient humans did not own Cuisinarts. It is likely that paleolithic mothers pre-chewed their children's food during weaning. It is also possible that when adults lost their teeth through illness or accident, others in their family group would chew their food for them.

Should modern paleos emulate the practice of pre-chewing a child's food during weaning? Aside from the nutritional benefits, are there immune or other protective advantages? Do the risks of communicable diseases such as strep or HIV outweigh the possible benefits? Good eats or gross re-enactment?

flag

11 Answers

9

We did this with our two sons, but only on occasion and because it is practical. Like when you have some fruit but nothing to chop it finely, so just pre-chew it for the children.

A dentist told me that it could be benificial for 'transplanting' mouth bacteria. And as I have never ever experienced any dental problems in my whole life, I thought that could be good.

By the way, I've somewhere read that kissing on the mouth and/or with tongue could have it's origins in the habit of pre-chewing. Ah, just googled a bit:

As for the origins of kissing, one theory is that kissing evolved as an extension of the way mothers used to feed their children. Early humans, who lacked jars of manufactured baby food, probably chewed up food and directly transferred it from their mouths to the babies (from here)

Could that be important?? ;)

link|flag
@Pieter D, interesting link--thanks! – Ed Dec 11 2010 at 18:45
Horizontal transmission via pre-chewed food from parent to child is beneficial if the parent's oral hygiene is great and history of cavities is low/non-existant. However, if the parent has gingivitis, periodontitis, active cavity(ies), the parent is inoculating the child with pathogens that could push the balance in favor infection/decay. – Joyce L. Mar 31 2011 at 1:44
4

Yes, this does happen. I've seen people in China doing this. There are probably some benefits to doing it (digestive enzimes in saliva, maybe strenthening baby's immune system?). Of course nowadays in the West we've become so preocupied with making everything sterile (making ourselves vastly weaker in the process*), that this seems totally crazy. I'm expecting a little one next year and I'll probably do it. Call me weird.

*Yes improved sanitation in hospitals was certainly a good thing, as it was in cities. But we've gone seriously overboard, as many doctors and scientists are beginning to acknowledge.

link|flag
I agree, the Purel-ificiation of schools and daycare is going to wreak havoc when the super bugs come calling... – Oranges13 Mar 30 2011 at 16:54
3

I was known to do that from time to time when no blender or food processor was available. I'll add that I was never sick at the time and my babies never suffered any illness because of it.

link|flag
3

I did this for all of mine with meat. It just seemed the natural thing to do.

link|flag
@Ambimorph, children certainly need fat and protein to replace milk when weaning, so meat fits the bill. – Ed Dec 11 2010 at 23:16
3

It has been determined through research that Hepatitis B, Group A Streptococcus, Herpes, and Epstein-Barr virus can be passed through pre-chewed food. Drug manufacturers must disclose whether products can be transmitted to babies through breast milk. There is no information about the transmission of drugs (beneficial or not) through saliva as a result of pre-chewing food and giving it to your kid. If a person is a smoker or a tobacco chewer (snuff's enuff), the nicotine by product, cotinine, can appear in saliva samples taken from toothbrushes (forensic science, folks) for up to ten hours after use. The transmission of cotinine is much more direct in saliva that it is from second-hand smoke. Cotinine has definitively and repeatedly shown by research to be associated with learning problems in children and adolescents. Serving up pre-chewed food is a risky business.

link|flag
Good points, Steve, but probably not so risky for non-smoking, healthy, paleoish parents who aren't taking any meds? – Ed Mar 30 2011 at 17:22
2

"Ancient humans did not own Cuisinarts."

But they didn't have the Internet, either.

link|flag
You're right, Stancel. I should have spell-checked "Cuisinart." I've corrected it. :-) – Ed Dec 11 2010 at 3:39
1

Is it really likely this happened often? There are lots of old people with no teeth in various poor parts of the world but I have never heard of anyone prechewing food for them. I suspect the body can digest the food without chewing as long as the pieces are cut small. Or you can beat the stuff tender using a rock. Might have happened sometimes for babies though. However, I don't see any obvious advantage to it now that we have forks and all.

link|flag
I'm sorry Eva. The first link in my question has expired. I'll try to find another. – Ed Dec 11 2010 at 3:50
I replaced the expired link with a similar link. It's hard to know how much pre-chewing went on in prehistory, because it's not something that would be likely to show up in a fossil record. However, there was a New York restaurant in the 1970s that offered pre-chewed steaks: dailymotion.com/video/… – Ed Dec 11 2010 at 4:21
While I agree that babies could and maybe should probably start eating regular food as soon as they are able and interested, I am just not sure how common it would have been for that food to be prechewed instead of just small pieces or softer food. – Eva Dec 11 2010 at 4:21
Pre chew your children. Cannabalism is Paleo, college funds are not. Yo will thank me after all is said and done. Had I read The Vegetarian Myth before kids I would have done different. At least I can see that I am helping the world...any one got an eye on the best Paleo Cannabalism Website? – Andre Chimene Dec 11 2010 at 7:48
1

The bacteria that cause tooth decay can be spread, so I don't think it is particularly wise to pre chew food for small children.

link|flag
1 
@Bisous, modern paleos often supplement with vits. D3 and K2. Does this make tooth decay considerations less of an issue for them? – Ed Dec 11 2010 at 13:42
I don't have tooth decay, since I don't eat anything that bacteria likes to eat, so I don't see it as an issue. – Ambimorph Dec 11 2010 at 19:07
1

This reminds me of that movie......Enemy Mine

link|flag
1

meat can be naturally tenderized, say with slices of pawpaw laid over it for a few minutes. You'll find plenty of other naturally occurring tenderizers, if you seek them out. To make cassava into a pudding, say for consumption by a child or infant, the cassava was grated and pushed through a sieve made of natural plant fibres. It still is where I come from. My point is there are plenty of ways other than chewing, which seems fraught with complications - as long as the chewer is not a smoker, has no gum disease, etc.etc. Just do what people have done for ages to soften food for infants. It isnt so hard to puree stuff, you dont have to chew it. Prechewing is so making a statement at the expense of commonsense.

link|flag
0

Simply stated, no.

link|flag

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.