Avoiding certain foods during pregnancy - good advice or just stupid?

elmarko · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:14

Sunbed said:
Yes, everything in moderation is my rule of thumb for dieting, but I think I would also draw the line at smoking and certain medications. Not made up my mind about alcohol yet. My gut feeling says an occasional glass of wine or beer wouldn't be detrimental.

I don't think moderation is really the issue with this.

If you eat specific foods with a certain bacteria & it takes hold the chances are good the mother will miscarry, this can happy by eating one piece of food on the list.

For some of the items on the list in which the impact is cumulative then yes, moderation is key - but not where the risks are based on chance.

Rroff said:
If you really care about a baby is it really a hardship to avoid something that has a known foreseeable risk, albeit a small one? granted there is also small risks from many other things that may not be listed.

Exactly, it's not like the mother is expected to live on bread & water for the entire time - just a small list of exclusions to mitigate against unnecessary risk.

Edrof · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:15

Sunbed said:
Some of those seem really dumb e.g. blue cheese - there is a rare chance that a certain bacteria may cause illness which is in turn bad for the baby. So, because there is a slim chance, that means an all-out ban of that food whilst pregnant? Seems dumb - if you haven't been ill from cheese before, why would it happen now?

I just think people get so overprotective with babies. It's like babies have a special little bubble with a total NO RISK policy. If I had a baby I think I would want my child to benefit from a varied diet from the mother.

Bizarre!

When you carry a baby you are charged with someone else's LIFE. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take a risk with anyone's life - whether they were three weeks old or thirty years old. And yes, babies and children require a bubble of immaculate safety around them because, from pregnancy to early years, they aren't anywhere near as good at survival as an adult.

Haggisman · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:18

Sunbed said:
You know who else doesn't have fully developed immune systems? Children. On R4 the other day there was a program about allergies, specifically how there are more of them these days. The hypothesis was that children who got ill more in their early years experienced fewer allergies in adulthood. Getting ill is natural and I believe it can be beneficial later.

Quite, however there's a difference between a child getting ill (who can be treated, hospitalised, etc.) and a baby that's "stuck" in the womb

As has already been mentioned, historical miscarriage/infant mortality rates were significantly higher than they are today - maybe there's a reason for that?

Scuzi · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:21

Why would you create a thread to display your ignorance in such a conspicuous fashion?

MikeTheNative · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:22

Scuzi said:
Why would you create a thread to display your ignorance in such a conspicuous fashion?

Hi, you must be new to GD................. wait 19,000 posts? :confused:

Feek · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:31

To Sunbed, if your wife was pregnant and she was given a list of things she should avoid eating to minimise the risk of damage to the unborn baby, what would you do?

Would you tell her to ignore it and eat what she wants or would you support her in finding alternatives?

Sunbed · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:33

Uhtred said:
Except peanuts, you shouldn't eat peanuts.

According to that NHS link, peanuts are considered fine now.

aardvark said:
yeah how dare these people use scientific research to lower the mortality rate of unborn children!!

There is a difference between scientific research and policy. Policy is based on the best scientific knowledge at the time, but it changes. Case in point above.

Also:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130930211701.htm

Eating fish known to be high in mercury for every meal? yeh, I guess that would increase risk. But as I said before, everything in moderation. Further to that, the same fish that are high in mercury e.g. sharks I believe also contain high levels of selenium, which is beneficial in many other ways.

Edrof said:
Bizarre!

When you carry a baby you are charged with someone else's LIFE. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take a risk with anyone's life - whether they were three weeks old or thirty years old. And yes, babies require a bubble of immaculate safety around them because, from pregnancy to early years, they aren't anywhere near as good at survival as an adult.

You don't take a risk with anyones life? I take it you have never driven someone in your car then?

Risk = probability x effect. If the overall probably of illness is very low then consequently the overall risk is low. Websites use words like 'risk' - well, of course there is 'risk' of a baby getting ill from a certain type of food, but the likelihood is probably very low.

TheVoice · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:37

Sunbed said:
Risk = probability x effect. If the overall probably of illness is very low then consequently the overall risk is low. Websites use words like 'risk' - well, of course there is 'risk' of a baby getting ill from a certain type of food, but the likelihood is probably very low.

If you're going to subject the baby to various "very low" risks then overall the risk of something happening is greater. Why is it worth the risk just for the sake of some blue cheese or whatever? It's not exactly a hardship.

Sunbed · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:37

Feek said:
To Sunbed, if your wife was pregnant and she was given a list of things she should avoid eating to minimise the risk of damage to the unborn baby, what would you do?

Would you tell her to ignore it and eat what she wants or would you support her in finding alternatives?

100% I would tell her to eat what she wants, providing it is in moderation. She wants a delicious seared swordfish steak? Fine.

(yeh that's banned too apparently).

Efour · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:38

I think avoiding 'higher' risk foods such as shellfish, live cheese or raw meat make complete sense. (in an overly careful society like the UK )

Sunbed · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:39

TheVoice said:
If you're going to subject the baby to various "very low" risks then overall the risk of something happening is greater. Why is it worth the risk just for the sake of some blue cheese or whatever? It's not exactly a hardship.

Because we both enjoy blue cheese, and blue cheese is very nutritious?

DailyGeek · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:40

Sunbed said:
Because we both enjoy blue cheese, and blue cheese is very nutritious?

You know what's not nutritious? Baby funerals.

Lokai · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:40

Sunbed said:
100% I would tell her to eat what she wants, providing it is in moderation. She wants a delicious seared swordfish steak? Fine.

(yeh that's banned too apparently).

And if she was to be so unfortunate (but not uncommon) to miscarry, when the second pregnancy comes along would you have the same opinion ? third time ?

TheVoice · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:41

DailyGeek said:
You know what's not nutritious? Baby funerals.

How about if there's a blue cheese buffet afterwards?

Sunbed · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:43

Haggisman said:
As has already been mentioned, historical miscarriage/infant mortality rates were significantly higher than they are today - maybe there's a reason for that?

Yeh, probably better midwives, doctors and hospitals?

Find me a scientific paper which correlates camembert consumption with miscarriages throughout history and I'll shut up forever and buy you all a pint for wasting your time

Efour · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:47

Start here

Uhtred · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:47

Sunbed said:
According to that NHS link, peanuts are considered fine now.

That would be my complaint, they chop and change advice too often and it varies by country. As Stewie said when wondering whether to sleep on his back or his front 'what does the current literature say?'

Haggisman · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:48

Sunbed said:
Yeh, probably better midwives, doctors and hospitals?

What's the point in having better midwives, doctors and hospitals, if people who think they know better are just going to ignore their advice anyway?

Sunbed · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:52

_Andyh_ said:
And if she was to be so unfortunate (but not uncommon) to miscarry, when the second pregnancy comes along would you have the same opinion ? third time ?

Naturally I would be more cautious, as you'd expect.

Out of 10 pregnancies, if 5 were miscarriages and on all those occasions she had eaten a swordfish steak, I would hold my hand up in admission of error in my ways.

Glaucus · 8 Jul 2014 at 13:54

Uhtred said:
That would be my complaint, they chop and change advice too often and it varies by country. As Stewie said when wondering whether to sleep on his back or his front 'what does the current literature say?'

Most of it is over cautious and isn't based on sound scientific research.
Just like a lot of advice on health. Which is based on lets say dodgy science, which was funded by certain groups. Just have to look at cholesterol and saturated fat for other areas where advice chops and changes.

Like the guy who said avoid tuna, actually that hasn't been the case for years, they changed it to no more than 4 cans a week.

I would support the women with their choice, if they want to "risk" it then support them if they don't support them in that as well, the risk for most of the list is miniscule anyway. I don't know anyone who has followed the advice to the letter and no issues. With most eating cheese and pate at the minimum.

Health is so poorly researched it needs billions in funding. Even the few areas of clinical research, you read the method and theirs more holes in it than sieve. This is also why you get research throwing up every side for the same topic.