The other problem with “no one knows the safe limit” is that different people may have different vulnerabilities as well. So one woman+baby combo might be affected much sooner or later than average.
But, as stated - it’s a forbidden experiment. You’re best off not drinking at all if you know you’re pregnant. On the other hand, a woman shouldn’t panic because she had a glass or two or a beer after conception but prior to knowing she was pregnant - everything will probably be alright, but don’t drink more at that point.
Except, of course, some people are clueless about “moderation”.
And that is the issue when you change that research into “no safe amount.” Its isn’t outside the realm of possibility that the stress from worrying about a glass of wine before you knew you were pregnant will do more harm than the glass of wine you occasionally had with dinner before you realized you were expecting.
When I looked into this years ago, there was research that women who drank very moderately through pregnancy had BETTER outcomes - their births went better and their kids hit developmental milestones EARLIER for the first three years of life (which is all the data the study had). A search isn’t giving me that same study.
I had a very much a surprise pregnancy - since we had just adopted due to infertility, and spent the first three months of it as a social drinker, so I did a bunch of research on it - but that baby is now sixteen. Plus I’d already done a bunch, when you adopt a kid, you don’t control a pregnancy, so I wanted to understand the real risk - which the real risk is "very few babies are born with FAS, and some babies are healthy when born to women who drank a hell of a lot - but its rare to find a baby with FAS where it is known that the mother only drank a very moderate amount. Although it isn’t hard at all to find adoptive parents and doctors who will condemn an unknown birthmother and diagnose FAS - when they have no idea if the birthmother drank or if the disabilities are due to something else. Back then, blaming the birthmother for your kid’s learning disabilities because she drank seemed as popular as blaming vaccines for your kid’s autism.
I wouldn’t recommend women drink - because my moderation (a glass of wine with dinner for a special occasion) might not be their moderation (three Grey Goose martinis instead of five at happy hour every Thursday and then out on Friday and Saturday, followed by the extra large Bloody Mary at brunch on Sunday - hey, its got vegetables in it and everything), but I wouldn’t freak out about it. After all MOST of the people I know were born to mothers who were social drinkers (and smokers, and drank coffee and probably ate cheese and rare steak). There is risk, but it isn’t worth losing sleep over.
I would think that abstinence (in this case meaning not having sex with men) would count as the best possible contraceptive so you’re covered.
Honestly though do you really feel a need to have every statement by a medical professional to address the fact that you don’t have sex with the opposite gender? Seriously, they are talking about people who may get pregnant accidently or purposely were they may not realize the danger before a pregnancy test comes up positive. Why in the world would it be important for them to talk about groups that have zero likelihood of having to deal with the issue addressed? Also your proposed recommendation if followed literally would lead to the end of the human race…
There may be no known safe amount, but there’s also precious little evidence that moderate drinking causes any harm at all. Do you think the entire nation of France suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome? I really think this is an alarmist recommendation, driven by the idea that women are just walking wombs.
Sure, it’s probably unwise to regularly get smashed when you are trying to get pregnant. But a drink here or there is unlikely to cause any problems at all, and even if you like to get drunk, stopping when you discover you are pregnant is likely safe enough.
One molecule is even stronger than billions, according to homeopathy. Considering that crap is all over the drugstore, I expect the CDC to greenlight it any day now.
My knowledge is a little hazy (it’s the drink), but prohibition and suffrage had strong links, didn’t they?
That’s “fetal alcohol spectrum” - also know as “little Austin has ADHD, and we are going to blame drinking during pregnancy.” There really isn’t any way to tell if the issues were caused by drinking. And its U.S. and Europe, not U.S. only.
Fetal alcohol syndrome is a very big deal, and is linked to significant alcohol consumption. Even then though, two out of three babies born to actively alcoholic women will not have FAS. So its hard to apply any causality with modest drinking (ADHD would overlap with FASD for instance - was it caused by drinking, or is this a kid who just has ADHD?)
You can find diagnosable fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in someone who drank two drinks per day or ten a week. Again, not every kid, but enough to create confidence. The evidence is less clear for drinking below that. (This is from wiki, but its a well cited article).
There is some point between ten a week and zero for the entire pregnancy (inclusive of the zero, of course) where the risk would be negligible. The only point they can say for sure is the point at which you don’t drink at all.
I think that two drinks per day or ten a week is a long way from a glass of wine with dinner or a toast at your sister’s wedding, and I really wish the guidelines didn’t err on the side of patronizing caution. For those women who have a long haul getting pregnant (it was three years for us) or who stress during pregnancy (the Bananas Foster had alcohol in it!) it really isn’t useful.
Technically speaking, no one should drink, ever; it’s not good for you. I don’t think there’s anything contraindicated for a pregnant woman that’s beneficial to the health of others.
I don’t agree with the recommendation - there is no proof that drinking low levels of alcohol is dangerous. No, it isn’t proven “safe” but that’s rather “proving a negative” since it’s “prove it can’t cause a problem” and that can never, ever be proven about anything.
“The risk is real” - yes, so are many other avoidable risks, like driving when not necessary, eating certain foods, etc.
That everyone is dancing around the fact that a woman who becomes accidentally pregnant can legally terminate her pregnancy if it happens she realizes “Oops, I must have already been pregnant when I got toasted on New Year’s eve”? That when a woman makes all her life decisions based on the possibility she could be pregnant is being treated like a womb with feet and no brain?
Well, there’s a correlation between being being drunk and committing sex crimes, so there’s a good reason to say “No.”
Ethically. It’s technically possible.
Well, actually, we do, because generations of women drank lightly before the discovery of FAS. My mother drank occasionally when she was pregant, and my brother and I are fine.
I rarely drink. Pretty much just on the Jewish holidays, but like every pregnant woman since about 1980, I avoided even smelling corks when I was pregnant. The irony, or many it’s not even irony, because a lot of people probably could have predicted it, is that women who are light drinkers, who can take it or leave it, abstain completely while pregnant, while alcoholics, women who are actually at risk for FAS babies in the first place, are the ones who find it impossible to quit while pregnant. It’s even dangerous for hard-core alcoholics to quit cold-turkey without treatment, and the anti-seizure medicine they need is very dangerous for embryos as well.
A lot of the same women were involved in both organizations; it had nothing to do with FAS, which was unknown at the time, and everything to do with the fact that there was a big problem in the US with drunk men beating their wives and letting their children starve. Prohibition advocated no one drinking, but it was really about men not drinking.
I share your skepticism there. I’ve gotten frustrated with sites that absolutely refuse to make a distinction between smoking one cigarette a year and two packs a day. Their answer to questions about the relative risk of various levels of smoking skirt the issue by saying “there is no safe level of tobacco use.” It may be technically true but it’s totally unhelpful.
Well, apparently, if you have heart disease, one cigarette can induce a heart attack, but it’s the nicotine, so for certain people, there is no safe level of nicotine use. So that line is not quite so bad, but there should be some fine print.
Does anyone smoke infrequently anymore? just curious? According to my mother, a lot of people use to smoke just at parties, or just on dates, but when the really scary surgeon’s general report came out, all the occasional smokers (which my parents were-- I wasn’t born yet) quit, leaving the addicts still smoking.
FWIW, I have a friend who had a heart attack over a year ago, and was ordered to quit smoking by her doctor, or her wouldn’t treat her anymore once she was discharged from the hospital. He told her she had to immediately cut down to one cigarette a day and he’d prescribe Chantix, or she could vape 0-nicotine to her heart’s content.
She was scared sh!tless of dying, and chose Chantix along with 0-nicotine vaping, which she did for about six months, and made her husband switch to nicotine vaping. She quit vaping eventually, but he still does it. Supposedly, because vapor sinks and smoke rises, second-hand vapor is safer than second-hand smoke. She still makes him go outside unless it’s raining or freezing.
What does any of that have to with the CDC recommendation. Do you think they should recommend that women don’t consider the potential problems that drinking can cause if they become pregnant? Should they recommend that women do drink when pregnant?
