I don’t agree with giving the Vit D supplements - clearly there are many Vit D deficient people in the US and that needs to be remedied.  But when trying to remedy a nutritional situation it seems to make sense to try and address it naturally first before adding medical care to it since in the absence of a malformation/disease our bodies are pretty well adapted to get what we need from nature.

I do not plan to give my newborn Vit D and did not give it to my son either - I did make it a practice to expose them to the sun regularly without sunscreen so that they could get Vit D naturally.  I believe this to be much healthier and efficient than buying Vit D.  Now, if I had very dark skin and lived in a northern climate I would probably give the supplements since I would be living somewhere my skin was not well-adapted.  But since I live in the same latitude as my ancestors I do not feel additional supplementation with chemicals is necessary.

Has it occurred to people that the massive scare-mongering of the sun and the massive effort to have ourselves coated in Vit D-blocking sunscreen every time we go outside has led to this epidemic of Vit D deficiency?

We did a related post, and something sure smells with this supplement recommendation doesn’t it?

If maternal levels of Vit D are proving to be too low to provide enough Vit D for babies, let’s educate new parents to remedy the issue naturally through nutrition and safe levels of sunlight when pregnant.

Educating expecting parents may not help corporations sell fortified formula, pills, and liquid supplements, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take. It would also be nice if members of the AAP didn’t have links to formula companies...but that’s another story.

Thanks for bringing up this topic Sarah!

Jason at Dr.MOZ

I myself would prefer to give my daughter a vitamin supplement as opposed to exposing her to the sun unprotected.  She is a redhead and has very fair skin.  Also my husband and most of his siblings have a genetically mutated gene that makes them more prone to skin cancer.  In fact, many of his siblings as well as his mom have had melanoma.  Everyone of them that is a redhead has had cancer.  Since there is a strong possibility that my daughter has this gene, I would prefer to give her a small supplement as opposed to exposing her to sunlight that may give her cancer later on in life.

I saw your comment Trisha and thought I’d reply. It’s definitely a good idea to be aware of sunlight exposure, especially with cancer in the family, but the problem is...you don’t know if your daughter needs Vitamin D to begin with.

The AAP pretends like the entire world suddenly needs more, and has a prescription for all of us to go along with this new found global Vit D deficiency. Your family doctor would be the best one to tell you if your daughter needed Vitamin D. If she was deficient, nutrition could be the answer (milk, fish, etc) but that is somehow overlooked in the AAP’s release.

I completely agree with that Jason.  I do think it is better to try to get it from food and other sources before turning to a vitamin.  I just wanted to make people aware that it may not be safe to expose children to extra sunlight to get vitamin D.  My daughter is already taking a multi vitamin as per the recommendation of her pediatrician, and at her next well child visit we will ask if she needs more vitamin D.

I think if you can afford it, why not?  It won’t do any harm...and will do a world of good if your child is in the “at risk” category, which you may not know until it’s too late.

And it seems, in general anyway, our world/lifestyle today is way different from what it was like with our ancestors (i.e. fast food diets, thinning ozone layer, living longer, better diagnostics, etc.,)...that maybe supplementation would be more relevant now...or it would have been relevant back then too, they just didn’t know…

Anyway, it’s your decision to make with what info/beliefs that you have.

That’s just my two cents…

Regarding Jenie’s “it won’t do any harm...” comment: Our bodies are like ecosystems.  Upping a particular vitamin may trigger an imbalance elsewhere or maybe that vitamin won’t be absorbed at all.  Things in our bodies often work in unison or as a part of a more complex relationship.  In order for something to be processed, something else has to be present.  For example, protein requires vitamin B6 in order to be metabolized; calcium requires vitamin D in order to be metabolized. Taking any single supplement without consideration for the bigger picture is not a great idea, especially when it comes to children’s little bodies.  You wouldn’t want to mess with that ecosystem too much.  In the end, natural is best—even if natural has to be in discreet amounts.  For me, I give my kids a multivitamin drop daily because we have well water and need the fluoride that comes with it.  It’s a little boost that I think is helpful but given all the enriched foods that they eat, I certainly would be hesitant to give them more of any one particular vitamin, even if the Academy of Pediatrics said so.  The FDA and the Academy of Pediatrics...you can’t trust them absolutely.  They’re good guidelines but do your own research.  Over time, you’ll see why I say this.  Hope this has been helpful.

From food? Seriously? Look up how much is in food and then tell me how you could eat enough of those things to get enough D. 16 eggs per day? Fish ten times a week?

Oh… and about the milk… that’s a SUPPLEMENT - it’s been added to the milk.

Anybody know how much sun you need? Fit THAT into your busy week! Unless you live in Florida - you prob aren’t gettin it!

Still not sure? Just have the levels tested - your Dr can do a blood draw.

Also - the need for vitamin D is not new - it’s that the AAP is just now figuring it out - they’re pretty slow. I’’m actually impressed that they’re recommending it.