Is there any objective source of information on light drinking during pregnancy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No because the CDC and large health organizations recognize that most people are morons, first and foremost. Then they also know that people will take more liberal actions based on their recs. The my say zero drinking and some people will still drink. They say a few drinks are ok and some will use it as justification to get smashed. Population health looks at people like a massive group, not as individuals, and certainly not as intelligent adults who can make their own personal decisions. Do you rely on large professional bodies to make all decisions for your life?

+1000
The CDC is the wonderful organization that said any woman having unprotected sex should completely abstain from drinking. This is clearly based on the assumption that they are talking to a woman who is not tracking her cycles and therefore could be 8 weeks pregnant without knowing.

And it should be noted that even the CDC says drinking while breastfeeding is not known to cause harm to the baby. Yet people still shame women for doing that. There's something else going on here besides concern for baby's health and it's rooted in a lack of respect for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No because the CDC and large health organizations recognize that most people are morons, first and foremost. Then they also know that people will take more liberal actions based on their recs. The my say zero drinking and some people will still drink. They say a few drinks are ok and some will use it as justification to get smashed. Population health looks at people like a massive group, not as individuals, and certainly not as intelligent adults who can make their own personal decisions. Do you rely on large professional bodies to make all decisions for your life?

Quote your source. Otherwise, this is just something you and the "I love my wine more than my child" camp wants to believe.

Says the person who clearly knows zilch about public health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No because the CDC and large health organizations recognize that most people are morons, first and foremost. Then they also know that people will take more liberal actions based on their recs. The my say zero drinking and some people will still drink. They say a few drinks are ok and some will use it as justification to get smashed. Population health looks at people like a massive group, not as individuals, and certainly not as intelligent adults who can make their own personal decisions. Do you rely on large professional bodies to make all decisions for your life?

Quote your source. Otherwise, this is just something you and the "I love my wine more than my child" camp wants to believe.

Says the person who clearly knows zilch about public health.

This idea that the CDC "thinking that most people are morons" is completely subjective in the absence of a reputable source or actual statement by the CDC. Any thinking person can agree to that.

[Anonymous]

NP here. I don't think the public should pick and chose what advice they want to take from the CDC based on how they want to carry out their lives. It's ALL meant for the public good, not just the advice that resonates with what an individual wants to do. Flu shots? Good advice. Not boozing it up while growing a helpless fetus? Good advice.

[Anonymous]

When I was pregnant and couldn’t find clear information on certain things like caffeine, alcohol, artificial sweeteners, certain fish, deli meats, etc., know what I did? I avoided them and slept well at night. NBD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No because the CDC and large health organizations recognize that most people are morons, first and foremost. Then they also know that people will take more liberal actions based on their recs. The my say zero drinking and some people will still drink. They say a few drinks are ok and some will use it as justification to get smashed. Population health looks at people like a massive group, not as individuals, and certainly not as intelligent adults who can make their own personal decisions. Do you rely on large professional bodies to make all decisions for your life?

+1000
The CDC is the wonderful organization that said any woman having unprotected sex should completely abstain from drinking. This is clearly based on the assumption that they are talking to a woman who is not tracking her cycles and therefore could be 8 weeks pregnant without knowing.

And it should be noted that even the CDC says drinking while breastfeeding is not known to cause harm to the baby. Yet people still shame women for doing that. There's something else going on here besides concern for baby's health and it's rooted in a lack of respect for women.

Nope. I am STAUNCHLY pro-equal pay, pro-choice, pro-everything for women. I am also of the belief that if you do want to have the baby, you shouldn't be putting the baby at unnecessary risk of developing serious health issues because you just can't unwind without a glass of red. I would hope to God you wouldn't feed an infant a glass of Malbec in a baby bottle. Same reasoning here. You can be pro-woman and anti-child abuse at the same time.

[Anonymous]

The CDC is not God. And they are certainly not infallible. Remember when they said all sexually active women who drink should be on birth control?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1523136/a-new-study-says-the-cdc-inflated-womens-risk-of-alcohol-exposed-pregnancies/amp/

[Anonymous]

what buzz is worth the risk? get some maternal instincts will you, damn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The CDC is not God. And they are certainly not infallible. Remember when they said all sexually active women who drink should be on birth control?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1523136/a-new-study-says-the-cdc-inflated-womens-risk-of-alcohol-exposed-pregnancies/amp/

CDC vs two women

Besides, even their estimate says 750k women should not have been drinking while they were potentially pregnant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No because the CDC and large health organizations recognize that most people are morons, first and foremost. Then they also know that people will take more liberal actions based on their recs. The my say zero drinking and some people will still drink. They say a few drinks are ok and some will use it as justification to get smashed. Population health looks at people like a massive group, not as individuals, and certainly not as intelligent adults who can make their own personal decisions. Do you rely on large professional bodies to make all decisions for your life?

Quote your source. Otherwise, this is just something you and the "I love my wine more than my child" camp wants to believe.

Says the person who clearly knows zilch about public health.

This idea that the CDC "thinking that most people are morons" is completely subjective in the absence of a reputable source or actual statement by the CDC. Any thinking person can agree to that.

Well, I would have thought any thinking person could realize PP was being hyperbolic, but apparently not.

The CDC, like any good public health organization, is making the assumptions described above. Most people aren’t morons, but most women who drink to the level at which exposure would be harmful to a developing fetus are going to need a very hard line about drinking and pregnancy. They literally cannot moderate their drinking if they drink at all. Hence the “no safe quantity” language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No because the CDC and large health organizations recognize that most people are morons, first and foremost. Then they also know that people will take more liberal actions based on their recs. The my say zero drinking and some people will still drink. They say a few drinks are ok and some will use it as justification to get smashed. Population health looks at people like a massive group, not as individuals, and certainly not as intelligent adults who can make their own personal decisions. Do you rely on large professional bodies to make all decisions for your life?

Quote your source. Otherwise, this is just something you and the "I love my wine more than my child" camp wants to believe.

Says the person who clearly knows zilch about public health.

This idea that the CDC "thinking that most people are morons" is completely subjective in the absence of a reputable source or actual statement by the CDC. Any thinking person can agree to that.

Well, I would have thought any thinking person could realize PP was being hyperbolic, but apparently not.

The CDC, like any good public health organization, is making the assumptions described above. Most people aren’t morons, but most women who drink to the level at which exposure would be harmful to a developing fetus are going to need a very hard line about drinking and pregnancy. They literally cannot moderate their drinking if they drink at all. Hence the “no safe quantity” language.

I get that this statement supports society's increasingly common understanding of why the CDC might caution women to completely give up alcohol during pregnancy. But it seems that this idea is just repeated so many times, without an official acknowledgement of its accuracy, that people, many of them very well educated, start to believe it. This is dangerous. The "no safe quantity" language that you reference is part of this societal understanding that lacks any official foundations. The reason the CDC uses this language, to my understanding and that of many scientists, is because it is unethical to conduct randomized, controlled experiments of alcohol consumption among pregnant women; thus, a literal, black and white "safe amount" can never be established.

If you happen to work for the CDC and can prove this all wrong, please do let us all know. Otherwise, I'd suggest we all stop touting this line about the CDC making statemements becuase of people who just can't seem to drink in moderation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No because the CDC and large health organizations recognize that most people are morons, first and foremost. Then they also know that people will take more liberal actions based on their recs. The my say zero drinking and some people will still drink. They say a few drinks are ok and some will use it as justification to get smashed. Population health looks at people like a massive group, not as individuals, and certainly not as intelligent adults who can make their own personal decisions. Do you rely on large professional bodies to make all decisions for your life?

+1000
The CDC is the wonderful organization that said any woman having unprotected sex should completely abstain from drinking. This is clearly based on the assumption that they are talking to a woman who is not tracking her cycles and therefore could be 8 weeks pregnant without knowing.

And it should be noted that even the CDC says drinking while breastfeeding is not known to cause harm to the baby. Yet people still shame women for doing that. There's something else going on here besides concern for baby's health and it's rooted in a lack of respect for women.

Nope. I am STAUNCHLY pro-equal pay, pro-choice, pro-everything for women. I am also of the belief that if you do want to have the baby, you shouldn't be putting the baby at unnecessary risk of developing serious health issues because you just can't unwind without a glass of red. I would hope to God you wouldn't feed an infant a glass of Malbec in a baby bottle. Same reasoning here. You can be pro-woman and anti-child abuse at the same time.

.

That's not how breast milk works my dear. Educate yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No because the CDC and large health organizations recognize that most people are morons, first and foremost. Then they also know that people will take more liberal actions based on their recs. The my say zero drinking and some people will still drink. They say a few drinks are ok and some will use it as justification to get smashed. Population health looks at people like a massive group, not as individuals, and certainly not as intelligent adults who can make their own personal decisions. Do you rely on large professional bodies to make all decisions for your life?

+1000
The CDC is the wonderful organization that said any woman having unprotected sex should completely abstain from drinking. This is clearly based on the assumption that they are talking to a woman who is not tracking her cycles and therefore could be 8 weeks pregnant without knowing.

And it should be noted that even the CDC says drinking while breastfeeding is not known to cause harm to the baby. Yet people still shame women for doing that. There's something else going on here besides concern for baby's health and it's rooted in a lack of respect for women.

Nope. I am STAUNCHLY pro-equal pay, pro-choice, pro-everything for women. I am also of the belief that if you do want to have the baby, you shouldn't be putting the baby at unnecessary risk of developing serious health issues because you just can't unwind without a glass of red. I would hope to God you wouldn't feed an infant a glass of Malbec in a baby bottle. Same reasoning here. You can be pro-woman and anti-child abuse at the same time.

.

That's not how breast milk works my dear. Educate yourself.

If you have given fruit juice to a child you have given them the same amount of alcohol that is in the breast milk of a drunk woman. You monster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No because the CDC and large health organizations recognize that most people are morons, first and foremost. Then they also know that people will take more liberal actions based on their recs. The my say zero drinking and some people will still drink. They say a few drinks are ok and some will use it as justification to get smashed. Population health looks at people like a massive group, not as individuals, and certainly not as intelligent adults who can make their own personal decisions. Do you rely on large professional bodies to make all decisions for your life?

Quote your source. Otherwise, this is just something you and the "I love my wine more than my child" camp wants to believe.

Says the person who clearly knows zilch about public health.

This idea that the CDC "thinking that most people are morons" is completely subjective in the absence of a reputable source or actual statement by the CDC. Any thinking person can agree to that.

Well, I would have thought any thinking person could realize PP was being hyperbolic, but apparently not.

The CDC, like any good public health organization, is making the assumptions described above. Most people aren’t morons, but most women who drink to the level at which exposure would be harmful to a developing fetus are going to need a very hard line about drinking and pregnancy. They literally cannot moderate their drinking if they drink at all. Hence the “no safe quantity” language.

I get that this statement supports society's increasingly common understanding of why the CDC might caution women to completely give up alcohol during pregnancy. But it seems that this idea is just repeated so many times, without an official acknowledgement of its accuracy, that people, many of them very well educated, start to believe it. This is dangerous. The "no safe quantity" language that you reference is part of this societal understanding that lacks any official foundations. The reason the CDC uses this language, to my understanding and that of many scientists, is because it is unethical to conduct randomized, controlled experiments of alcohol consumption among pregnant women; thus, a literal, black and white "safe amount" can never be established.

If you happen to work for the CDC and can prove this all wrong, please do let us all know. Otherwise, I'd suggest we all stop touting this line about the CDC making statemements becuase of people who just can't seem to drink in moderation.

No. Again, it’s a *public health* issue. While conducting an RCT on this issue would be unethical, there are multiple studies out there showing no risk for up to one drink per day during pregnancy. But the message to the *public* has to be more stark because there are people who cannot moderate their drinking, i.e., those addicted to alcohol. I don’t work for the CDC, but I work in science and know enough about health communications to get it. I mean, informed consent documents are written at an eighth grade reading level. Because many people wouldn’t understand them if the reading level was higher. Most people in this country don’t have a college degree, let alone a graduate degree. I understand what you’re saying, and the party line drives me slightly nuts, too, but the simple fact is the vast majority of people aren’t as well-educated as you seem to think they are.

That people who should be well-educated enough to discern the nuance is a different issue, and IMO one based on emotion rather than logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I was pregnant and couldn’t find clear information on certain things like caffeine, alcohol, artificial sweeteners, certain fish, deli meats, etc., know what I did? I avoided them and slept well at night. NBD.

But could you find clear information about lettuce, bike-riding vs driving, air pollution, pthalates in your moisturizer?

The fact is there is not clear information for most things. There are just fads about certain things that sometimes are true, sometimes true but taken out of perspective, and sometimes fake.