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

[Anonymous]

Would you give your 3 month old baby a tiny sip of alcohol? Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"a risk evaluation approach"

let's get out our calculators.. here we type in how sweet my buzz is going to be.. here we type in the risk that I ruin my child's life.....

great, 91%! bottoms up!

I hope this is also the kind of calculation you do if you are considering eating a piece of melon (Listeria recalls last year) or getting in a car for a discretionary trip (e.g. visiting a friend, not going to work). You or your baby could DIE, so don't do it!

That is not risk evaluation, though.

To be fair the odds of any given melon being contaminated are pretty low. And I am not sure you can realistically reduce your risk of catching listeriosis to 0.

The chance of an alcoholic drinks containing alcohol is 100%. And we
know you can reduce the risk of FASD to 0 by not drinking alcohol. Yes, there's no evidence that drinking a glass of wine with a meal can cause FASD, but it is fair to say that not drinking alcohol is one of the easier ways to prevent harm to a fetus.

You totally can reduce your risk of contracting listeriosis to 0. Just microwave everything single thing you eat to an internal temperature of 165 degrees. If you truly love your child and have self control, you’ll do that for 9 months. If you’re having trouble giving up eating cold or room temperature food, there’s help and resources for women like you. Talk to your doctor about it.

As you know, that is not very practical. Just like not riding in a car for 9 months. That is why I said "realistically". It is, however, pretty easy not to drink alcohol for 9 months. I actually don't think it's terrible for most pregnant women to have a glass of wine with food now and then. But many people, myself included, like alcohol because of the buzz and are not in the habit of drinking slow enough. And for me, I feel hungover from one drink even if I did not feel a buzz, so I did not drink at all during pregnancy because if I feel that bad, it must be terrible for the baby.

I don't think comparing drinking alcohol to avoiding car accidents and food with listeria makes much sense.

I was careful to specify discretionary car trips, which are just as unnecessary as alcohol and easy to avoid if you stay home, make people visit you, walk or take trains, etc. Annoying? Sure. But why can't you avoid driving places for fun for 9 months? It's such a short time. Same for foods carrying listeria - your baby's life is at stake, is that not worth the effort of trying?

I'm not personally committed to drinking during pregnancy OR to avoiding unnecessary car trips during pregnancy, but i think it proves my general point about risk evaluation that people are reacting with "but you don't NEED any" for alcohol at levels far below what is known to cause harm, while being perfectly fine with low but potentially lethal known risks in other areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"a risk evaluation approach"

let's get out our calculators.. here we type in how sweet my buzz is going to be.. here we type in the risk that I ruin my child's life.....

great, 91%! bottoms up!

I hope this is also the kind of calculation you do if you are considering eating a piece of melon (Listeria recalls last year) or getting in a car for a discretionary trip (e.g. visiting a friend, not going to work). You or your baby could DIE, so don't do it!

That is not risk evaluation, though.

To be fair the odds of any given melon being contaminated are pretty low. And I am not sure you can realistically reduce your risk of catching listeriosis to 0.

The chance of an alcoholic drinks containing alcohol is 100%. And we
know you can reduce the risk of FASD to 0 by not drinking alcohol. Yes, there's no evidence that drinking a glass of wine with a meal can cause FASD, but it is fair to say that not drinking alcohol is one of the easier ways to prevent harm to a fetus.

You totally can reduce your risk of contracting listeriosis to 0. Just microwave everything single thing you eat to an internal temperature of 165 degrees. If you truly love your child and have self control, you’ll do that for 9 months. If you’re having trouble giving up eating cold or room temperature food, there’s help and resources for women like you. Talk to your doctor about it.

As you know, that is not very practical. Just like not riding in a car for 9 months. That is why I said "realistically". It is, however, pretty easy not to drink alcohol for 9 months. I actually don't think it's terrible for most pregnant women to have a glass of wine with food now and then. But many people, myself included, like alcohol because of the buzz and are not in the habit of drinking slow enough. And for me, I feel hungover from one drink even if I did not feel a buzz, so I did not drink at all during pregnancy because if I feel that bad, it must be terrible for the baby.

I don't think comparing drinking alcohol to avoiding car accidents and food with listeria makes much sense.

To me, comparing the two makes perfect sense. They are things women often do when not pregnant, present possible risks when pregnant, and so you need to conduct a risk evaluation about what to continue when pregnant. Every woman is unique and has autonomy to make her own responsible choice. Lots of women decide not to eat out of salad bars and some decide not to eat any raw vegetables or fruits. That isn’t unrealistic. When you go abroad to certain countries, that is the recommended medical advice even when not pregnant so as to avoid certain parasites and illnesses.

That’s great for you that you drink wine to feel a buzz, can feel effects after a glass, and so made that decision for yourself not to drink during pregnancy. I think wine tastes like someone mixed vinegar with grape juice and beer is even worse, so of course I didn’t drink. Another woman might drink a little wine every now and then, like the taste and not get a buzz, and decide to have a glass every now and then in pregnancy. Another woman might run a winery and decide taking a sip of each production batch to check quality is worth the risk v benefit for her. I respect all of their choices and don’t throw vitriol at them anonymously on the internet.

There’s lots of choices pregnant women should get to make for themselves, like whether to take medicines for chronic conditions that aren’t proven completely safe, whether to keep doing certain types of exercises, whether to keep working at a job with certain risks, etc. When you police decisions with no proven risk (like having a glass of wine every now and then because you get a buzz and don’t trust yourself to drink slowly enough or just drink less), you aren’t supporting women’s rights and autonomy. You’re viewing women as incubators whose choices should be shamed or regulated.

[Anonymous]

I was recently at a dinner party with some friends, one of whom is pregnant and drinking wine. She had been between jobs for quite some time now and asked if I would refer her resume at my place of employment. There is no way in hell I could expect a woman to have the sound judgement to keep government secrets when she doesn’t even have the sound judgement to abstain from alcohol to protect her little one. Lest you think I’m being sexist, I judged her husband just as harshly for pouring her that wine.

The point that I’m trying to make here is that yes, you are free to make whatever decision you want with your own body. That’s your right and one that I don’t think should ever be taken away from you. But you also have to understand that most of society sees this as self indulgent and a completely unnecessary hazard. Surveys show that 10% of pregnant women do drink, the other 90% do not. That tells us everything we need to know about how risks are tolerated, and perceived, among the majority of the population.

[Anonymous]

OP: You might want to check out this book for non-hysterical pregnancy advice

https://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/0143125702

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP: You might want to check out this book for non-hysterical pregnancy advice

https://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/0143125702

Lol. This is the exact book that OP read that inspired this thread...in 2011

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would you give your 3 month old baby a tiny sip of alcohol? Where do you draw the line?

You jest, but rubbing alcohol on babies gums used to be VERY common for teething. We survived...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"a risk evaluation approach"

let's get out our calculators.. here we type in how sweet my buzz is going to be.. here we type in the risk that I ruin my child's life.....

great, 91%! bottoms up!

I hope this is also the kind of calculation you do if you are considering eating a piece of melon (Listeria recalls last year) or getting in a car for a discretionary trip (e.g. visiting a friend, not going to work). You or your baby could DIE, so don't do it!

That is not risk evaluation, though.

To be fair the odds of any given melon being contaminated are pretty low. And I am not sure you can realistically reduce your risk of catching listeriosis to 0.

The chance of an alcoholic drinks containing alcohol is 100%. And we
know you can reduce the risk of FASD to 0 by not drinking alcohol. Yes, there's no evidence that drinking a glass of wine with a meal can cause FASD, but it is fair to say that not drinking alcohol is one of the easier ways to prevent harm to a fetus.

You totally can reduce your risk of contracting listeriosis to 0. Just microwave everything single thing you eat to an internal temperature of 165 degrees. If you truly love your child and have self control, you’ll do that for 9 months. If you’re having trouble giving up eating cold or room temperature food, there’s help and resources for women like you. Talk to your doctor about it.

As you know, that is not very practical. Just like not riding in a car for 9 months. That is why I said "realistically". It is, however, pretty easy not to drink alcohol for 9 months. I actually don't think it's terrible for most pregnant women to have a glass of wine with food now and then. But many people, myself included, like alcohol because of the buzz and are not in the habit of drinking slow enough. And for me, I feel hungover from one drink even if I did not feel a buzz, so I did not drink at all during pregnancy because if I feel that bad, it must be terrible for the baby.

I don't think comparing drinking alcohol to avoiding car accidents and food with listeria makes much sense.

I was careful to specify discretionary car trips, which are just as unnecessary as alcohol and easy to avoid if you stay home, make people visit you, walk or take trains, etc. Annoying? Sure. But why can't you avoid driving places for fun for 9 months? It's such a short time. Same for foods carrying listeria - your baby's life is at stake, is that not worth the effort of trying?

I'm not personally committed to drinking during pregnancy OR to avoiding unnecessary car trips during pregnancy, but i think it proves my general point about risk evaluation that people are reacting with "but you don't NEED any" for alcohol at levels far below what is known to cause harm, while being perfectly fine with low but potentially lethal known risks in other areas.

Wow, you think not driving anywhere except what, work and the doctor, for nine months is as easy as not drinking alcohol? Hey if you think a glass of wine with a meal is safe for you and your baby I say go for it, you are probably right, but don't act like giving it up would be tantamount to losing your ability to out with your friends for nine months. With listeria, it's pretty easy to accidentally eat a sandwich with bean sprouts. It's not nearly as likely that you'll accidentally drink alcohol.

I am not for policing pregnant women who drink alcohol. I just think these arguments about listeria and riding in cars are silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you give your 3 month old baby a tiny sip of alcohol? Where do you draw the line?

You jest, but rubbing alcohol on babies gums used to be VERY common for teething. We survived...

But it clearly f***ed with your intelligence.

I do not understand how historical context of drinking in pregnancy is just thrown off as crazy in this forum over and over on this issue.

Historically MANY drinks had alcohol content. In the middle ages people drank mead and ale at almost every meal. Water was frequently dirty. Pregnant women had no reason to avoid alcohol historically and so throughout human history probably drank alcoholic beverages with meals.

The whole of human history didn't have FASD (although certainly many did).

The body is pretty good at sorting out impurities. It has kept the human race alive and thriving. I certainly think that knowing alcohol does damage and removing its consumption as a regular/frequent thing that pregnant women do is a good thing. But we actually DO have some evidence that moderate drinking isn't that damaging, and that is the whole of human history and the fact that our species didn't turn out like a light back in times when people drank alcohol the same way we drink iced tea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you give your 3 month old baby a tiny sip of alcohol? Where do you draw the line?

You jest, but rubbing alcohol on babies gums used to be VERY common for teething. We survived...

But it clearly f***ed with your intelligence.

I do not understand how historical context of drinking in pregnancy is just thrown off as crazy in this forum over and over on this issue.

Historically MANY drinks had alcohol content. In the middle ages people drank mead and ale at almost every meal. Water was frequently dirty. Pregnant women had no reason to avoid alcohol historically and so throughout human history probably drank alcoholic beverages with meals.

The whole of human history didn't have FASD (although certainly many did).

The body is pretty good at sorting out impurities. It has kept the human race alive and thriving. I certainly think that knowing alcohol does damage and removing its consumption as a regular/frequent thing that pregnant women do is a good thing. But we actually DO have some evidence that moderate drinking isn't that damaging, and that is the whole of human history and the fact that our species didn't turn out like a light back in times when people drank alcohol the same way we drink iced tea.

Because you can't compare ancient societies - where the options of killing a newborn with defects, locking up or beating kids with abandon were on the table - with modern society. People in those times led much different lives. Women started having children much younger, generally had no problem finding a way to dump an unwanted baby.. and it really hasn't been until the 20th century in Western societies that women have had social permission to sit on their asses sipping cocktails instead of doing an endless cycle of domestic labor and serving men their ale.

Plus, we know alcohol exposure poses very individualized risks on people. Many children of moms who drank are just fine, others have severe disorders, and every shade in between.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you give your 3 month old baby a tiny sip of alcohol? Where do you draw the line?

You jest, but rubbing alcohol on babies gums used to be VERY common for teething. We survived...

But it clearly f***ed with your intelligence.

I do not understand how historical context of drinking in pregnancy is just thrown off as crazy in this forum over and over on this issue.

Historically MANY drinks had alcohol content. In the middle ages people drank mead and ale at almost every meal. Water was frequently dirty. Pregnant women had no reason to avoid alcohol historically and so throughout human history probably drank alcoholic beverages with meals.

The whole of human history didn't have FASD (although certainly many did).

The body is pretty good at sorting out impurities. It has kept the human race alive and thriving. I certainly think that knowing alcohol does damage and removing its consumption as a regular/frequent thing that pregnant women do is a good thing. But we actually DO have some evidence that moderate drinking isn't that damaging, and that is the whole of human history and the fact that our species didn't turn out like a light back in times when people drank alcohol the same way we drink iced tea.

Because you can't compare ancient societies - where the options of killing a newborn with defects, locking up or beating kids with abandon were on the table - with modern society. People in those times led much different lives. Women started having children much younger, generally had no problem finding a way to dump an unwanted baby.. and it really hasn't been until the 20th century in Western societies that women have had social permission to sit on their asses sipping cocktails instead of doing an endless cycle of domestic labor and serving men their ale.

Plus, we know alcohol exposure poses very individualized risks on people. Many children of moms who drank are just fine, others have severe disorders, and every shade in between.

I'm comparing the societies and saying that they are like, admirable. I'm just saying that people have been drinking since the middle ages. Maybe it wasn't until the 20th century that women were sitting around drinking cocktails, but in 1500 England EVERYONE drank ale. Alcoholic drinks have been bartered and traded and consumed since the first farmer knew how to grow and do something worthwhile with wheat. I think we invented beer before bread.

Of course they led much different lives and I'm in no way shape or form suggesting that we emulate the life of a medieval peasant. BUT, the fact that for centuries women were almost certainly drinking alcohol as a standard drink of the age, primarily because these drinks had alcohol which could act as a preservative for the drink, and the fact that not everyone had FASD, means that there is likely not that much danger at low levels of exposure.

I take a class D medication during pregnancy due to a chronic pain condition (valium, at a very low dose). It is classified as class d because of some (poor) studies done in the 70s but almost all my doctors agree that in all liklihood it is a safe medication because in the 40s and 50s basically everyone was on a benzo and if there were a clear terrible consequence of it it would have come out and been a huge deal back when it was an extremely common drug. The benefits of taking the medication (not being in agonizing pain that leaves me unable to function for months) vs the potential side effects would lead me to take this drug even if the concerns were greater. But it is an example of how doctors DO factor in broad human experience in their personal estimations of concern over certain substances.

Alcohol use has been endemic to the human experience for centuries. We know that excessive drinking leads to severe birth defects. But if mild drinking led to birth defects we would have known about it much sooner, because someone would have picked up on it centuries ago.

[Anonymous]

First sentence should say I'm NOT comparing the societies to say 'ancient' (1500 isn't ancient really) to say they are admirable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you give your 3 month old baby a tiny sip of alcohol? Where do you draw the line?

You jest, but rubbing alcohol on babies gums used to be VERY common for teething. We survived...

But it clearly f***ed with your intelligence.

I do not understand how historical context of drinking in pregnancy is just thrown off as crazy in this forum over and over on this issue.

Historically MANY drinks had alcohol content. In the middle ages people drank mead and ale at almost every meal. Water was frequently dirty. Pregnant women had no reason to avoid alcohol historically and so throughout human history probably drank alcoholic beverages with meals.

The whole of human history didn't have FASD (although certainly many did).

The body is pretty good at sorting out impurities. It has kept the human race alive and thriving. I certainly think that knowing alcohol does damage and removing its consumption as a regular/frequent thing that pregnant women do is a good thing. But we actually DO have some evidence that moderate drinking isn't that damaging, and that is the whole of human history and the fact that our species didn't turn out like a light back in times when people drank alcohol the same way we drink iced tea.

Because you can't compare ancient societies - where the options of killing a newborn with defects, locking up or beating kids with abandon were on the table - with modern society. People in those times led much different lives. Women started having children much younger, generally had no problem finding a way to dump an unwanted baby.. and it really hasn't been until the 20th century in Western societies that women have had social permission to sit on their asses sipping cocktails instead of doing an endless cycle of domestic labor and serving men their ale.

Plus, we know alcohol exposure poses very individualized risks on people. Many children of moms who drank are just fine, others have severe disorders, and every shade in between.

I'm comparing the societies and saying that they are like, admirable. I'm just saying that people have been drinking since the middle ages. Maybe it wasn't until the 20th century that women were sitting around drinking cocktails, but in 1500 England EVERYONE drank ale. Alcoholic drinks have been bartered and traded and consumed since the first farmer knew how to grow and do something worthwhile with wheat. I think we invented beer before bread.

Of course they led much different lives and I'm in no way shape or form suggesting that we emulate the life of a medieval peasant. BUT, the fact that for centuries women were almost certainly drinking alcohol as a standard drink of the age, primarily because these drinks had alcohol which could act as a preservative for the drink, and the fact that not everyone had FASD, means that there is likely not that much danger at low levels of exposure.

I take a class D medication during pregnancy due to a chronic pain condition (valium, at a very low dose). It is classified as class d because of some (poor) studies done in the 70s but almost all my doctors agree that in all liklihood it is a safe medication because in the 40s and 50s basically everyone was on a benzo and if there were a clear terrible consequence of it it would have come out and been a huge deal back when it was an extremely common drug. The benefits of taking the medication (not being in agonizing pain that leaves me unable to function for months) vs the potential side effects would lead me to take this drug even if the concerns were greater. But it is an example of how doctors DO factor in broad human experience in their personal estimations of concern over certain substances.

Alcohol use has been endemic to the human experience for centuries. We know that excessive drinking leads to severe birth defects. But if mild drinking led to birth defects we would have known about it much sooner, because someone would have picked up on it centuries ago.

Let me spell this out for you since you are not getting it. If babies were harmed by prenatal alcohol exposure in 16th century England we wouldn't know because babies with problems were much more likely to either be miscarried, killed, died in early childhood, or if they survived, subjected to some other medieval horror to keep them in line (none of which are options in modern society). The mortality rate for babies and children was MUCH higher, and no one was tracking the causes, or the incidence of learning disabilities, etc.

You have no idea how many people were affected by alcohol over the course of human history so stop pretending binge watching the Tudors has equipped you with that knowledge. Nobody was keeping track and science wasn't concerned with the health impacts of anything on children until modern times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you give your 3 month old baby a tiny sip of alcohol? Where do you draw the line?

You jest, but rubbing alcohol on babies gums used to be VERY common for teething. We survived...

But it clearly f***ed with your intelligence.

I do not understand how historical context of drinking in pregnancy is just thrown off as crazy in this forum over and over on this issue.

Historically MANY drinks had alcohol content. In the middle ages people drank mead and ale at almost every meal. Water was frequently dirty. Pregnant women had no reason to avoid alcohol historically and so throughout human history probably drank alcoholic beverages with meals.

The whole of human history didn't have FASD (although certainly many did).

The body is pretty good at sorting out impurities. It has kept the human race alive and thriving. I certainly think that knowing alcohol does damage and removing its consumption as a regular/frequent thing that pregnant women do is a good thing. But we actually DO have some evidence that moderate drinking isn't that damaging, and that is the whole of human history and the fact that our species didn't turn out like a light back in times when people drank alcohol the same way we drink iced tea.

Because you can't compare ancient societies - where the options of killing a newborn with defects, locking up or beating kids with abandon were on the table - with modern society. People in those times led much different lives. Women started having children much younger, generally had no problem finding a way to dump an unwanted baby.. and it really hasn't been until the 20th century in Western societies that women have had social permission to sit on their asses sipping cocktails instead of doing an endless cycle of domestic labor and serving men their ale.

Plus, we know alcohol exposure poses very individualized risks on people. Many children of moms who drank are just fine, others have severe disorders, and every shade in between.

I'm comparing the societies and saying that they are like, admirable. I'm just saying that people have been drinking since the middle ages. Maybe it wasn't until the 20th century that women were sitting around drinking cocktails, but in 1500 England EVERYONE drank ale. Alcoholic drinks have been bartered and traded and consumed since the first farmer knew how to grow and do something worthwhile with wheat. I think we invented beer before bread.

Of course they led much different lives and I'm in no way shape or form suggesting that we emulate the life of a medieval peasant. BUT, the fact that for centuries women were almost certainly drinking alcohol as a standard drink of the age, primarily because these drinks had alcohol which could act as a preservative for the drink, and the fact that not everyone had FASD, means that there is likely not that much danger at low levels of exposure.

I take a class D medication during pregnancy due to a chronic pain condition (valium, at a very low dose). It is classified as class d because of some (poor) studies done in the 70s but almost all my doctors agree that in all liklihood it is a safe medication because in the 40s and 50s basically everyone was on a benzo and if there were a clear terrible consequence of it it would have come out and been a huge deal back when it was an extremely common drug. The benefits of taking the medication (not being in agonizing pain that leaves me unable to function for months) vs the potential side effects would lead me to take this drug even if the concerns were greater. But it is an example of how doctors DO factor in broad human experience in their personal estimations of concern over certain substances.

Alcohol use has been endemic to the human experience for centuries. We know that excessive drinking leads to severe birth defects. But if mild drinking led to birth defects we would have known about it much sooner, because someone would have picked up on it centuries ago.

Let me spell this out for you since you are not getting it. If babies were harmed by prenatal alcohol exposure in 16th century England we wouldn't know because babies with problems were much more likely to either be miscarried, killed, died in early childhood, or if they survived, subjected to some other medieval horror to keep them in line (none of which are options in modern society). The mortality rate for babies and children was MUCH higher, and no one was tracking the causes, or the incidence of learning disabilities, etc.

You have no idea how many people were affected by alcohol over the course of human history so stop pretending binge watching the Tudors has equipped you with that knowledge. Nobody was keeping track and science wasn't concerned with the health impacts of anything on children until modern times.

I'm not denying AT ALL that many children were born with disabilities and discarded or treated poorly. That is true for basically every birth defect for any reason. And yet things did slowly come to light and get figured out over the centuries. My point is that basically EVERYONE drank alcohol at times in history due to the preservative nature and danger of water. And so if minor exposures to alcohol regularly caused FASD then at times virtually ALL babies born would have had FASD and that did not happen.