"Maternal intake of cruciferous vegetables and other foods and colic
symptoms in exclusively breast-fed infants," Lust, K.D.; Brown, J.E.;
Thomas, W.  JADA 1996; 96:47-48.

I have read this paper and I also came to the conclusion that the paper is
weak on the mechanism by which cruciferous vegetables could potentially
cause colic; in fact, the paper doesn't suggest a mechanism at all.  For
example, the sentence "S-methyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide, or a derivative of
it, may pass into breast milk and lead to abdominal distress and cramps in
the immature gut of young infants," leads one to ask:  "Well, does it pass
into breastmilk?  And if so, can this be shown to lead to either distress
or cramps?"  I'm surprised such a tentative statement made it past the
reviewers.

Also, there are methodological problems, the prinicipal one being that the
diet and the sequelae ("colic") are self-reported, and that the cultural
belief in the population being studied that cruciferous vegetables "cause"
colic is already well-known.  Also, the authors defined colic fairly
precisely in their introduction, but seemingly failed to go by this
definition in their methodology.

It is an interesting paper, but the conclusion "Results of this study
provide initial evidence that maternal intake of cruciferous vegetables,
cow's milk, onion, or chocolate during exclusive breast-feeding is
associated with colic symptoms in young infants," is not supported.

Arly Helm               [log in to unmask]
MS, Nutrition & Food Science, CLE, IBCLC