Urban Kids Have More Food Allergies Than Their Country Cousins

Six percent of children in rural areas had a food allergy, compared with 10 percent of kids in urban centers. Sophie Bushwick reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

City kids have a smorgasbord of food choices. But they also face food allergies more than do their country cousins.

Researchers mapped food allergies in children across the U.S. And they found more cases per capita in areas with higher population densities. The work is in the journal Clinical Pediatrics. [Ruchi S. Gupta et al., "Geographic Variability of Childhood Food Allergy in the United States"]

The scientists collected allergy information on more than 38,000 Americans under age 18, and then sorted the information by zip code. Six percent of children in rural areas had a food allergy. But that number jumped to 10 percent of kids in urban centers. Peanut and shellfish allergies in particular were more common. Although the frequency of allergies varied by location, their severity did not.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


What explains this trend? It could be that rural dirt is good—in the country, children’s immune systems get challenged early and often, and thus more properly trained. Or it could be that urban dirt is bad—city children deal with pollutants that may predispose them toward allergies.

Solving this puzzle could help protect kids from common foods that can do them uncommon harm.

—Sophie Bushwick

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]   

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe