New guidelines for peanut allergy prevention in high-risk infants recommend introducing peanut during infancy but do not address breastfeeding or maternal peanut consumption. We assessed the independent and combined association of these factors with peanut sensitization in the general population CHILD birth cohort (N = 2759 mother–child dyads). Mothers reported peanut consumption during pregnancy, timing of first infant peanut consumption, and length of breastfeeding duration. Child peanut sensitization was determined by skin prick testing at 1, 3, and 5 years. Overall, 69% of mothers regularly consumed peanuts and 36% of infants were fed peanut in the first year (20% while breastfeeding and 16% after breastfeeding cessation). Infants who were introduced to peanut early (before 1 year) after breastfeeding cessation had a 66% reduced risk of sensitization at 5 years compared to those who were not (1.9% vs. 5.8% sensitization; aOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14–0.68). This risk was further reduced if mothers introduced peanut early while breastfeeding and regularly consumed peanut themselves (0.3% sensitization; aOR 0.07, 0.01–0.25). In longitudinal analyses, these associations were driven by a higher odds of outgrowing early sensitization and a lower odds of late-onset sensitization. There was no apparent benefit (or harm) from maternal peanut consumption without breastfeeding. Taken together, these results suggest the combination of maternal peanut consumption and breastfeeding at the time of peanut introduction during infancy may help to decrease the risk of peanut sensitization. Mechanistic and clinical intervention studies are needed to confirm and understand this “triple exposure” hypothesis.

Two broad aims drive weed science research: improved management and improved understanding of weed biology and ecology. In recent years, agricultural weed research addressing these two aims has effectively split into separate subdisciplines despite repeated calls for greater integration. Although some excellent work is being done, agricultural weed research has developed a very high level of repetitiveness, a preponderance of purely descriptive studies, and has failed to clearly articulate novel hypotheses linked to established bodies of ecological and evolutionary theory. In contrast, invasive plant research attracts a diverse cadre of nonweed scientists using invasions to explore broader and more integrated biological questions grounded in theory. We propose that although studies focused on weed management remain vitally important, agricultural weed research would benefit from deeper theoretical justification, a broader vision, and increased collaboration across diverse disciplines. To initiate change in this direction, we call for more emphasis on interdisciplinary training for weed scientists, and for focused workshops and working groups to develop specific areas of research and promote interactions among weed scientists and with the wider scientific community.