Kate Hudson's comments on Letterman Show [Archive]

BabyBlues

August 5th 03, 07:55 PM

"Naomi" > wrote in message
om...
>> The amount of alcohol in a single drink of wine is about the same as
> the amount of alcohol in a single drink of beer or hard liquor. (Of
> course the total quantity of liquid consumed is different, since 'a
> beer' is larger than 'a shot of whiskey' or 'a glass of wine.')
>
> However, alcohol in small amounts is not likely to be harmful to the
> baby. I don't know how much Kate Moss drinks, but if she is imbibing
> in moderation, (a drink or two on occassion -- NOT a bottle of wine
> with dinner every night) her baby will almost certainly be fine. It's
> a pity that the American medical establishment has gone so far
> overboard on this one.
>
>
> Naomi

It isn't just the "American medical establishment" most European Countries
(and others) are coming around and CHANGING their position on
alcohol...recognizing that more and more evidence is showing that there is a
*real* possibility of small amounts doing harm to the fetus.

(reposted)
here are several articles that suggest small quantities *are* a concern.

...." Even pregnant women who stick rigidly to government advice on how much
is safe to drink may be damaging their unborn children, researchers in
*Belfast* have said.
Official advice is that pregnant women can safely drink up to four units of
alcohol a week.
But researchers at Queen's University have said their tests on babies in the
womb have revealed that even drinking the equivalent of four glasses of wine
a week can affect development. The government is being urged to re-consider
its advice in light of the new findings.
...Research fellow Dr Jennifer Little, who conducted the study, said: "The
results show that even **low levels** of alcohol may have an effect on the
central nervous system functioning. "We don't want to concern women, but
until we can absolutely say that a certain level of alcohol will have no
effect, I would urge caution." American women are advised not to drink at
all during pregnancy but more than two-thirds of British mothers-to-be do
not totally give up. The Royal College of Midwives had previously said up to
eight units was a safe limit. ..."
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/northern%5Fireland/newsid%5F620000/620552.stm

-----------

"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) By Keith Mulvihill - Children whose mother
consumed even a small amount of alcohol during pregnancy may be at increased
risk of behavioral problems later in life, according to the results of a new
study.
Compared with teetotalers, women who drank the equivalent of **one cocktail
a week** during pregnancy were three times more likely to have a child
diagnosed
with behavioral problems, researchers report.
"This study shows that adverse effects of prenatal alcohol exposure on
childhood behavior are seen at lower levels of exposure than previously
reported," said co-author Dr. Virginia Delaney-Black, of Children's Hospital
of Michigan, in an interview with Reuters Health.

<article snipped>..."Significantly, children with low levels of prenatal
alcohol exposure--equivalent to an average of one cocktail per week across
pregnancy--were three times as likely to have delinquent behavior scores in
the clinical range," Delaney-Black told Reuters Health. This was true after
the researchers took into account other factors that can influence a child's
behavior.

<snipped> Most studies in humans to date have reported adverse effects of
prenatal alcohol exposure on childhood behavior at higher levels of exposure
than reported in this study. Recently, there has been a suggestion that
children exposed to even ***small amounts*** of alcohol prenatally may have
significant problems, Delaney-Black explained.
Both Sood and Delaney-Black recommend that women avoid any amount of
alcohol, even a few sips of wine, for the duration of pregnancy, "as we do
not know the 'safe' dose of alcohol exposure, if one exists," they told
Reuters Health. (SOURCE: Pediatrics 2001;108)
http://www.come-over.to/FAS/delaney.htm

"(July, 2001). The **NZ*** Alcohol Advisory Committee and the national
college of
gynae's.....up until last month, their official stance was that up to 15
drinks a week was fine. As a result of the [...] meeting they are now
recommending to women ****zero***** consumption."

BabyBlues

August 5th 03, 08:02 PM

"newfy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "
>
> This topic has been debated here over and over again. I personally don't
> drink while pregnant, but I don't really drink when NOT pregnant so why
> would I start? I see nothing wrong with a glass of wine here or there. I
> know many, many people who do and have had absolutely no problems
> --
> JennP.
> mom to matthew 10/11/00
> EDD 4/4/04
>
SIGH....that's like me saying I see many, many people who do drive with
their baby/child in their laps down the road..."and they have absolutely no
problems...so why the heck shouldn't we all do it once in a while, it can't
hurt, and their child turned out "just fine" so how can it be a problem"???
Those people who advocate for using a carseat **all the time** are
overreacting! "Most trips will turn out just fine"! The question is...can
you be sure which trip will?

newfy

August 6th 03, 04:32 PM

"BabyBlues" > wrote in message
. ca...
> SIGH....that's like me saying I see many, many people who do drive with
> their baby/child in their laps down the road..."and they have absolutely
no
> problems...so why the heck shouldn't we all do it once in a while, it
can't
> hurt, and their child turned out "just fine" so how can it be a
problem"???
> Those people who advocate for using a carseat **all the time** are
> overreacting! "Most trips will turn out just fine"! The question is...can
> you be sure which trip will?

Hardly a good analogy.
--
JennP.
mom to matthew 10/11/00
EDD 4/4/04

Irene

August 6th 03, 07:14 PM

>
> But we DO know that there is range (say... oh... [don't take this as gospel,
> I'm just pulling a number out of my hat], no more than 2 drinks at a time, no
> more than three days a week) where there is no evidence of harm. So.... instead
> of telling women, essentially "The only way to guarantee that your baby will
> not have FAS is to never drink from the moment you decide to try and conceive"
> [and yes, I've seen books that say just that], why can't doctors say something
> like "Of course you don't have to drink alcohol while pregnant, and it may be
> that the safest course is to abstain completely. But if you enjoy alcohol, it
> appears to be safe to drink no more than X amount of alcohol." (And they
> should, of course, make sure the woman understands what 'a drink' is -- that
> it's NOT a six pack, or a bottle of wine, but an ounce of hard liquor, 5 ounces
> of wine or 12 ounces of beer.)
>
> > it's
> >ultimately up to the mother on what amount risk she's willing to
> >except to expose her unborn fetus to.
> >
>
> I agree. Except women aren't given this information in a reasonable manner.
> They are not told "occassional alcohol use exposes your baby to a real but
> miniscule risk." They are told "If you touch alcohol your baby will have FAS."
>
And so far as I know, no one has done a study about women who have,
say, one drink a month while pregnant. All the descriptions I've seen
describe moderate or light drinkers as 1 drink a day or 4 drinks a
week, or something similar. Which is a far cry from occasionally
having a drink at a very special occasion. (FWIW, I had a few sips of
wine occasionally while I was pregnant, once I knew, but never more
than a half a glass at a time, IIRC). So, no one really knows if that
is harmful. I suppose it would be hard to organize a study for that.

Irene

BabyBlues

August 6th 03, 10:16 PM

"newfy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BabyBlues" > wrote in message
> . ca...
> > SIGH....that's like me saying I see many, many people who do drive with
> > their baby/child in their laps down the road..."and they have absolutely
> no
> > problems...so why the heck shouldn't we all do it once in a while, it
> can't
> > hurt, and their child turned out "just fine" so how can it be a
> problem"???
> > Those people who advocate for using a carseat **all the time** are
> > overreacting! "Most trips will turn out just fine"! The question
is...can
> > you be sure which trip will?
>
> Hardly a good analogy.
> --
> JennP.
> mom to matthew 10/11/00
> EDD 4/4/04
>

Hmmmm...why's that? Seems to me it is right on. We *Know* at some point an
accident will likely happen to someone (oh but never *me* right/always
someone else)...we don't know how serious it will be...it could be a minor
bump or it could be much more serious. So why on earth do people still
drive with their children on their laps? Or two children in one adult
seatbelt etc...??? why?...cause "oh it won't hurt....I can hold her/him,
they are in *a* seatbelt...or it's only a trip around the block this one
time"... And that to you is not a good analogy to ..."it's only a small
little amount of alcohol...it is *only* this once, or once in a while...I
KNOW *this* amount is safe (how?) my mother drank all the time and *I*
turned out ok, or I had a few drinks when *I* was pregnant with little
so-and so...and HE IS PERFECTLY HEALTHY etc....".

We *KNOW* for a FACT that alcohol at ome level *is* very damaging to a
growing fetus. That is a *fact* that *has* been proven. What is still in
debate is how much (IF ANY) is "safe". I suppose that all those women who
*CHOOSE* to drink *know* for a fact just *how much* is safe. I guess that
would be about the same likelihood as a parent knowing which trip with an
unsecured child will result in an accident (and to not go on that particular
trip)....Seems absolutely ridiculous to me.

Would you give a on week old baby a "small sip", or "only" half a glass of
wine? Hmmmm why not? Why do people think that if it is in utero it is
somehow "different" than giving it to an unborn?

Elaine

August 6th 03, 10:47 PM

In article >, BabyBlues wrote:
>
> We *KNOW* for a FACT that alcohol at ome level *is* very damaging to a
> growing fetus. That is a *fact* that *has* been proven. What is still in
> debate is how much (IF ANY) is "safe". I suppose that all those women who
> *CHOOSE* to drink *know* for a fact just *how much* is safe. I guess that
> would be about the same likelihood as a parent knowing which trip with an
> unsecured child will result in an accident (and to not go on that particular
> trip)....Seems absolutely ridiculous to me.

We KNOW for a FACT that Water at some level is very damaging to a
growing fetus. No one knows exactly where that level is, probably
because it varies from mother to mother. There's been quite a bit
of debate about how much water is too much water. I guess that
everyone who chooses to drink water knows for a fact just *how
much* is safe.

>
> Would you give a on week old baby a "small sip", or "only" half a glass of
> wine? Hmmmm why not? Why do people think that if it is in utero it is
> somehow "different" than giving it to an unborn?

Actually, if you adjust for body weight, in some cultures you would
give a young baby somewhere beteen a sip and a half a glass of wine.
A half glass of wine is 2 oz. If the mother weighs 185lb, the baby-
equivilent dose would be about 1/3 teaspoon. During a bris, it
is traditional to give the baby a few drops of wine. As far as I
know, no studies have found ill effects on the babies.

At some point, the amount of alcohol becomes negligable. Otherwise
pregnant women wouldn't be allowed anything with vanilla extract,
or natural flavors (which are commonly in an alcohol carrier).
Obviously there is a safe lower range, but no one knows what it is.

(And no, all of the alcohol is *not* cooked out. If you'd like -
I'd be happy to provide the studies.)

Elaine

H Schinske

August 6th 03, 10:55 PM

>On 6 Aug 2003 11:14:53 -0700, (Irene) wrote:
>
>> I suppose it would be hard to organize a study for that.

and wrote:
>
>What mother is going to say, "Oh, yes, I will drink a large amount of
>alcohol every day so you can find out what it does to my baby"?? None
>of the ones that I know.

Wait, she was saying they DID have data on the moms who drank a lot. It's the
moms who have one drink in a week or a month or two times in the whole
pregnancy that we don't have any data on.

--Helen

Naomi Pardue

August 7th 03, 02:42 AM

>Ever hear of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome?

I am sure we are all familiar with FAS. And know that it does NOT occur in
babies of women who consume low levels of alcohol during pregnancy, but in
children of women who consume alcohol in large amounts (either regular, heavy
drinking or occassional binging).

Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

BabyBlues

August 7th 03, 03:23 AM

"Naomi Pardue" > wrote in message
...
> >Ever hear of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome?
>
> I am sure we are all familiar with FAS. And know that it does NOT occur
in
> babies of women who consume low levels of alcohol during pregnancy, but in
> children of women who consume alcohol in large amounts (either regular,
heavy
> drinking or occassional binging).
>

"FAS" damage isn't the only damage and risk that is a result of alcohol.
Lower levels cause other problems, not just the most "noticeable" damage
seen in full blown FAS. You are correct full blown fas does NOT occur with
low levels of consumption...but other problems *do* occur...and that is what
is currently starting to emerge in research. But hey, since it isn't the
full blown "noticeable" FAS, or isn't readily apparent..why should anyone
have to give up anything?!!

BabyBlues

August 7th 03, 03:50 AM

"Elaine" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, BabyBlues
wrote:
> >
> > We *KNOW* for a FACT that alcohol at ome level *is* very damaging to a
> > growing fetus. That is a *fact* that *has* been proven. What is still
in
> > debate is how much (IF ANY) is "safe". I suppose that all those women
who
> > *CHOOSE* to drink *know* for a fact just *how much* is safe. I guess
that
> > would be about the same likelihood as a parent knowing which trip with
an
> > unsecured child will result in an accident (and to not go on that
particular
> > trip)....Seems absolutely ridiculous to me.
>
> We KNOW for a FACT that Water at some level is very damaging to a
> growing fetus. No one knows exactly where that level is, probably
> because it varies from mother to mother. There's been quite a bit
> of debate about how much water is too much water. I guess that
> everyone who chooses to drink water knows for a fact just *how
> much* is safe.

Sigh....whatever.

> > Would you give a on week old baby a "small sip", or "only" half a glass
of
> > wine? Hmmmm why not? Why do people think that if it is in utero it is
> > somehow "different" than giving it to an unborn?
>
> Actually, if you adjust for body weight, in some cultures you would
> give a young baby somewhere beteen a sip and a half a glass of wine.

Well...that used to be common practice here too...but we *know* better now.
There are many cultures that still have not recognized the health risks of
smoking...are you suggesting that since they still smoke we are being silly
to suggest people quit here or that there are *real* dangers to smoking?

> A half glass of wine is 2 oz. If the mother weighs 185lb, the baby-
> equivilent dose would be about 1/3 teaspoon. During a bris, it
> is traditional to give the baby a few drops of wine. As far as I
> know, no studies have found ill effects on the babies.

Well....hmmm a few drops is hardly the same as a glass of wine with
dinner... or even a few "sips" as some call it...this is a few DROPS...*one*
sip would contain more than that!

> At some point, the amount of alcohol becomes negligable. Otherwise
> pregnant women wouldn't be allowed anything with vanilla extract,
> or natural flavors (which are commonly in an alcohol carrier).

Well...yes that is likely that at some point alcohol becomes
"negligible"...but I think it would be in the few DROPS range as opposed to
the half a glass or more of wine.... and most "extracts" no longer use real
alcohol...they are made so cheaply now...you have to HUNT to find one "with"
alcohol in it here...

> Obviously there is a safe lower range, but no one knows what it is.

So then why do women feel they have this "divine" knowledge "know"
themselves what that safe level is? when science is still debating
it...shouldn't a mother be the one on the side of *protecting* their child
from even the smallest **CHANCE** of harm???

>
> (And no, all of the alcohol is *not* cooked out. If you'd like -
> I'd be happy to provide the studies.)

Uhhhh yah...I am well aware of that.

BabyBlues

August 7th 03, 05:17 AM

"Naomi" > wrote in message >
> It's
> a pity that the American medical establishment has gone so far
> overboard on this one.
>

The US is not alone is suggesting *abstinence* for pregnant women...included
in that list is Ireland, Sweden, Canada, Austria, Australia, Denmark...and I
do believe somewhere I saw NZ has also changed its recommendations in the
last few years too...

BabyBlues

August 7th 03, 06:05 AM

"Astromum" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
> > The latest studies conclude that there are NO safe levels
> > of alcohol to consume while pregnant.
>
> We've BTDT ad nauseam... If you make statements like this, at
> least include the reference to the studies so people can read
> up on them. How else would you expect people to educate themselves
> about alcohol during pregnancy?
>

Sadly it seems that no amount of information seems to be sufficient enough
for those who believe "anything in moderation" is "fine" and they *know*
that "their" chosen "low" level is perfectly safe. Some people simply are
not willing to give up a luxury item for anything less than 100%
*undeniable* in their face *proof* that it is for sure going to cause a
significant amount of harm.

Here is a few quotes anyway....(but NO, they are not 100% undeniable...but
unless someone out there is omnipotent...I am not sure how they are
determining just exactly how much they can *safely* consume before they
cause *some* damage to those precious cells)

...." study suggests that even small amounts of alcohol during pregnancy (as
little as one drink a week) may have a negative impact on a child's behavior
years later."
http://kidshealth.org/research/alcohol_pregnancy.html

"It used to be believed that drinking moderate amounts (a drink a day) was
relatively safe. But it's only recently been discovered that children of
women who drank during pregnancy - even those who had as little as one drink
a day - were experiencing developmental problems throughout their childhood
and even into adolescence."
http://health.discovery.com/centers/pregnancy/americanbaby/alcohol.html

"A study conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Harlow Primate
Laboratory demonstrates for the first time in a laboratory setting that even
moderate drinking can harm infant development. ...

....."Most research has focused on fetal alcohol syndrome, a lifelong
condition that can cause mental retardation and other behavioral and
learning problems. That condition stems from excessive drinking during
pregnancy, but Schneider said her study shows the risks are not limited to
problem drinkers. ...

...."It seems to contradict a common assumption that 'anything in moderation'
is fine," she said."...
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/404DE.htm

When a woman who is pregnant drinks alcohol, the levels of alcohol in her
baby's blood rise as high as her own. But because the baby's liver is
immature, it cannot metabolise that alcohol as fast as an adult can. So the
baby is exposed to **greater amounts** of alcohol **for longer** than the
mother.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/ask_doctor/pregnancy_drinking.shtml

Everyone wants to know "how much is too much?" Although alcohol-related
birth defects are believed to be induced in a dose response manner, low dose
effects are very difficult to scientifically assess in human populations.
***Whether there is*** a threshold below which alcohol can be consumed
without harming the conceptus ***is not known***. Also, due in part to
individual variability (susceptibility), research will not be able to
provide an accurate answer for everyone. ...
....Certainly, the best advice is to totally abstain from alcohol use during
pregnancy, even at stages prior to the time that pregnancy is recognized.
Although some clinicians believe that recommending total abstention for
pregnant women may subject them to unwarranted guilt about drinking small
amounts of alcohol, most accept the need for clinical caution. Because it is
not known at what dosage alcohol damage begins, it is prudent to recommend
that pregnant women abstain from alcohol use. ...

In addition to considering consequences of alcohol exposure prior to birth,
it is also important to note that alcohol that a lactating mother consumes
is present in her milk and ** may affect the brain** of her nursing infant.
http://www.med.unc.edu/alcohol/ed/fas/slides/welcome.htm

Elaine

August 7th 03, 03:32 PM

The Huwe Family wrote:
> BTW, you won't find a Fetal Water Syndrome.

Nope, it's called hyponatremia. It'll kill mother and child,
or just cause brain swelling and damage. It'll also flush out
large quantities of water soluble vitamins, leaving you with
a temporary vitamin deficiency.

It is a real danger, and the amount of water it takes to kick
someone into water intoxication (the first stage) can't be clearly
defined due to the multitude of factors involved in each individual
case. Would you rather I had picked salt, which has lower toxic
levels?

I'm not minimizing the risks of FAS, but a sip of wine, or
even a half glass of wine during pregnancy doesn't cause FAS.

Elaine

Elaine

August 7th 03, 03:57 PM

In article >, BabyBlues wrote:
>
> "Elaine" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, BabyBlues
> wrote:
>elaine wrote:
>> Actually, if you adjust for body weight, in some cultures you would
>> give a young baby somewhere beteen a sip and a half a glass of wine.
>
> Well...that used to be common practice here too...but we *know* better now.
> There are many cultures that still have not recognized the health risks of
> smoking...are you suggesting that since they still smoke we are being silly
> to suggest people quit here or that there are *real* dangers to smoking?

I'm not quite sure where you're "here" is, but it's still common
among jews in canada and the US. The amount of alcohol you are
objecting to is similar to a brief exposure to second hand smoke.
Would you like pregnant women and infants to wear gas masks on the
streets?

>> A half glass of wine is 2 oz. If the mother weighs 185lb, the baby-
>> equivilent dose would be about 1/3 teaspoon. During a bris, it
>> is traditional to give the baby a few drops of wine. As far as I
>> know, no studies have found ill effects on the babies.
>
> Well....hmmm a few drops is hardly the same as a glass of wine with
> dinner... or even a few "sips" as some call it...this is a few DROPS...*one*
> sip would contain more than that!

No. The fetus gets alcohol through the mother's bloodstream. That
means that the fetus gets a weight adjusted amount of alcohol. A
half glass of wine is equivilent to directly giving the fetus a
third of a teaspoon, which is a few drops. In addition, the mother's
body helps to process out the alcohol, which lowers exposure
even more in comparison to a baby.

>> At some point, the amount of alcohol becomes negligable. Otherwise
>> pregnant women wouldn't be allowed anything with vanilla extract,
>> or natural flavors (which are commonly in an alcohol carrier).
>
> Well...yes that is likely that at some point alcohol becomes
> "negligible"...but I think it would be in the few DROPS range as opposed to
> the half a glass or more of wine....

Yes, you would *think*. Yet in your last post you said that you couldn't
*know* what amounts were safe. You are making a judgement about what is
safe, with no more evidence than women who decide that a half glass
of wine during pregnancy is safe. There is no difference between
your methods to make that judgement, the only difference is where
you draw that line. A sip of wine has more volume than a few drops
of distilled alcohol, but not much more alcohol.

> and most "extracts" no longer use real
> alcohol...they are made so cheaply now...you have to HUNT to find one "with"
> alcohol in it here...

Have you called manufacturers? I can't have alcohol derived from
grain sources. The vast majority of flavors used in the food industry
are in an alcohol carrier. I would be happy to give you a list of
producers to call. Industrial alcohol is dirt cheap, and it is far
and away the least expensive carrier, since it will mobilize both
the alcohol and water soluble flavors.

> So then why do women feel they have this "divine" knowledge "know"
> themselves what that safe level is? when science is still debating
> it...shouldn't a mother be the one on the side of *protecting* their child
> from even the smallest **CHANCE** of harm???

Are you eating processed foods? Do you eat yeast breads? Do you
digest your food, or take in intravenously? The bacteria in your
gut make alcohol as they help you break down your food. At some
point you have to draw the line.

Your fetus is at risk. All the time. You can't protect against
the smallest chance of harm. It would be really nice if you could,
but the reality is that it isn't possible, and if it was possible
it would drive pregnant women batty.

I don't think that anyone has claimed divine knowledge of safety.
They have made reasoned choices, and their answers aren't all the
same as yours.

I am all in favor of discussing specific recent studies that point
to negative effects of low levels of alcohol. I think it's an
interesting topic; however, making it an emotional topic doesn't
help people make good decisions.

ELaine

Naomi Pardue

August 7th 03, 04:20 PM

>Some people simply are
>not willing to give up a luxury item for anything less than 100%
>*undeniable* in their face *proof* that it is for sure going to cause a
>significant amount of harm.
>

Actually, FWIW, I didn't drink during pregnancy. (But then, I drink very
little at any time, pregnant or not.)

>.." study suggests that even small amounts of alcohol during pregnancy (as
>little as one drink a week) may have a negative impact on a child's behavior
>years later."
>http://kidshealth.org/research/alcohol_pregnancy.html

Interestingly, if you read the actual study, you will find that it was done on
a population of low income African American women, MOST of whom drank while
pregnant. (Only 25% abstained.) Surely SE factors would come into play here.
I would like to see a similar study done on a more generalized population
before concluding that a drink a week causes children to become violent...

>But it's only recently been discovered that children of
>women who drank during pregnancy - even those who had as little as one drink
>a day - were experiencing developmental problems throughout their childhood
>and even into adolescence."
>http://health.discovery.com/centers

This article (I didn't check the actual study) was pretty vague about
'developmental problems' .. I mean ALL kids have problems while growing up,
surely. (And again, it uses the 'drink a day' cut off,not an occassional drink
over the course of the pregnancy.
I also found it ironic that the one 'problem' the article did specify was that
14 year old's of moderate drinking mothers were lighter than their peers. ANd
gee... here I'd been thinking all this time that childhood/adolescent obesity
was such a problem -- no we are being told that it's ALSO a problem to be
thinner than your obese classmates!

>***Whether there is*** a threshold below which alcohol can be consumed
>without harming the conceptus ***is not known***. Also, due in part to

Correct. But it is not follow therefore, than any amount MUST be harmful.

Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

Nina

August 7th 03, 04:47 PM

"The Huwe Family" > wrote in message
. com...
> I had to take an alcohol servers course when I used to work in a
restaurant
> that served alcohol. Alcohol is a Poison. Anyway you look at it, it is a
> poison.

Actually, the medical establishment believes that in certain amounts,
alcohol is beneficial to the body and health.

The reason that the legal drinking age is 21 is because the liver
> of anyone younger than that is not mature enough to handle the poison.

Thats not quite the reason.

As
> it is, every time you drink, your liver is damaged by trying to filter the
> poison out of your blood stream. Your liver doesn't just filter it, it
> stores it because it can't get rid of it. This is what you are giving
your
> baby boy or girl. If an 18 year olds liver can't handle the poison, how
> can a child who isn't even born yet?
>
> Gayle
>
> "The Huwe Family" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Ever hear of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? The most tell tale sign is
children
> > having a face with a flattened nose and almost Mongoloid shaped eyes.
The
> > damage goes anywhere from learning disabilities to deformity of the
> skeletal
> > structure, and mottling of the skin.
> >
> > Here is a good link to check out statistics and basic info on it.
> > http://www.acbr.com/fas/
> >
> > BTW, you won't find a Fetal Water Syndrome.
> >
> > Gayle
> >
> >
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Kate Hudson appeared on the Late Show tonight and is pregnant. Dave
> > > commented about her health and about not drinking while pregnant...
> > > she said 'no, that she doesn't drink while pregnant --- oh, except for
> > > wine--that's OKAY'... ??? Does she not know that wine, beer, liquor
> > > are all the same? It's all alcohol and it's all harmful. Actually
> > > she's consuming more alcohol with wine than she would with a beer,
> > > generally. The latest studies conclude that there are NO safe levels
> > > of alcohol to consume while pregnant. I hope that there is a
> > > backlash toward in her regard to this; she did a great disservice to
> > > women out there who are pregnant and may be uninformed.
> >
> >
>
>

Erin

August 7th 03, 07:30 PM

"The Huwe Family" > wrote in message
. com...
> I had to take an alcohol servers course when I used to work in a
restaurant
> that served alcohol. Alcohol is a Poison. The reason that the legal
drinking age is 21 is because the liver
> of anyone younger than that is not mature enough to handle the poison. As
> it is, every time you drink, your liver is damaged by trying to filter the
> poison out of your blood stream. Your liver doesn't just filter it, it
> stores it because it can't get rid of it. This is what you are giving
your
> baby boy or girl. If an 18 year olds liver can't handle the poison, how
> can a child who isn't even born yet?
>
> Gayle
>

Oh my goodness, where to start ...

1) Yes, alcohol is a toxin. Yet many reputable studies indicate that in
small or moderate amounts, it seems to keep adult blood vessels clean, which
correlates with a lower risk of heart attacks. In nonpregnant folks small
amounts can actually be good, and in pregnant folks, we aren't yet sure if
small amounts are ok, beneficial, or bad. (Large amounts of alcohol are
clearly bad for everyone, pg or not.)

2) The drinking age has absolutely nothing to do with when the liver can
break down alcohol! There is no functional difference between, say, a
15-year-old liver and and a 22-year-old one. Before the 1980s, nearly all
US states set the legal age at 18. It was raised because most drunk driving
accidents involved people aged 18-20. Older people drive drunk less. That's
why the drinking age is now 21.

3) Yes, your liver filters and stores alcohol and other substances that it
wants to pull out of the bloodstream and eliminate from the body. But it
doesn't store it forever! Just until it can safely feed it to the next
organ(s) down the line in the expelling process.

Nobody disputes that FAS is extremely bad. Some just dispute that
"absolutely none" is the only rational choice in the matter given the
incredibly fuzzy facts available about infrequent drinking. And I think what
a lot of small-drinking pregnant women like me (none in first trimester, a
few drinks spread out during the rest of the pregnancy) find annoying about
some no-drink proponents is the assertion that we're bad mothers for not
taking the most conservative approach. This is really a philosophy split
between those who say you should always strive to control for every risk and
those who say that some risk in their life is always going to be there, and
will be accepted.

Not erring completely on the side of caution in every single choice you make
during pregnancy does not a bad mother make, IMO. In fact, small-drinkers
like me would probably say that is a more generally realistic take on life.
Even medical textbooks that document the horrors of FAS acknowledge that
nobody can ensure a "safe" pregnancy through their actions. Here is an
interesting quote from a human anatomy textbook by Martini, Timmons, and
Tallitsch:

"The expectations of prospective parents that every pregnancy will be
idyllic and every baby a perfect specimen reflects deep-seated
misconceptions about the nature of the developmental process. These
misconceptions lead many to believe that when serious developmental errors
occur, someone or something is at fault, and blame must be assigned to
maternal habits, such as smoking, alchohol consumption, improper diet,
maternal exposure to toxins or prescription drugs, or the presence of other
disruptive stimuli in the environment. The prosecution of women giving
birth to severely impaired infants for "fetal abuse" represents an extreme
example of this philosophy.

"Although environmental stimuli may indeed lead to developmental problems,
such factors are only one component of a complex system normally subject to
considerable variation. Even if every pregnant woman were packed in cotton
fluff and locked in her room from conception to delivery, developmental
accidents and errors would continue to appear with statistical regularity."

If people choose not to drink at all during pregnancy, then that's a good
decision for them. But before they make assertions that those with
differing opinions are wrong/bad, they should do more research and maybe be
a little more respectful and tolerant.

Best, Erin
edd 10/26/03

BabyBlues

August 7th 03, 08:54 PM

"Naomi Pardue" > wrote in message > Actually,
FWIW, I didn't drink during pregnancy. (But then, I drink very
> little at any time, pregnant or not.)

I never suggested that you did.

> Interestingly, if you read the actual study, you will find that it was
done on
> a population of low income African American women, MOST of whom drank
while
> pregnant. (Only 25% abstained.) Surely SE factors would come into play
here.
> I would like to see a similar study done on a more generalized population
> before concluding that a drink a week causes children to become violent...

Yes, thank you I have read the study. And yes, there are 'flaws', as in
every study...and the researchers of most studies do recognize the self
reporting problems/concerns...(hence why some have done animal studies to
prevent/avoid that issue....especially since there are obvious ethical
implications of doing a "perfect" human fetus alcohol study that might be
more conclusive) my point is that for some there will never be "enough"
proof for those who want to rationalize their choices. I think if you take
all the "flawed" studies...you can see there is at the very least a pattern
of possibility...but if people don't want to see it...

And since self reporting is a concern...I would guess those who say "I only
have a small glass, a small sip, or a occasional drink"...likely may be
underreporting as well.

> >But it's only recently been discovered that children of
> >women who drank during pregnancy - even those who had as little as one
drink
> >a day - were experiencing developmental problems throughout their
childhood
> >and even into adolescence."
> >http://health.discovery.com/centers
>
> This article (I didn't check the actual study) was pretty vague about
> 'developmental problems' .. I mean ALL kids have problems while growing
up,
> surely.

*If* I recall the actual study was more specific...but besides...funny how
you easily rationalize it with..."all kids have problems"...so as long as
they are just like every other kid or it's not that big a deal, what's the
harm? Yikes...

>(And again, it uses the 'drink a day' cut off,not an occassional drink over
the course of the pregnancy.)

Sigh....so how do you (or anyone) determine what exactly is the "safe"
limit? And again, there *is* concern that there are problems with less but
since it is not "visible" or often not scientifically "measurable" in a
study...it is very difficult to "prove".

> I also found it ironic that the one 'problem' the article did specify was
that
> 14 year old's of moderate drinking mothers were lighter than their peers.
ANd
> gee... here I'd been thinking all this time that childhood/adolescent
obesity
> was such a problem -- no we are being told that it's ALSO a problem to be
> thinner than your obese classmates!

Uhhmmm........ I don't think this is about "obesity and the problems with
children today" (and how being "lighter" would be a good thing)....smaller
size is not just about "smaller size" as in thin/fat but rather poses
questions about the implications of *why* those children DID NOT GROW to
their likely "normal" size (statistically) in the same way other children
did (and would leads to questions for more research on why that happened,
and if it affects other areas of development).

>
> >***Whether there is*** a threshold below which alcohol can be consumed
> >without harming the conceptus ***is not known***. Also, due in part to
>
> Correct. But it is not follow therefore, than any amount MUST be harmful.

Sigh...yes there COULD be *some* amount that is not harmful. But alcohol
*is* one of the WORST teratogens KNOWN to cause harm to the fetus...so it
seems rather ridiculous to me that people would rationalizes that since we
don't *know* for a *fact* for sure that those "little" amounts harm,...it
should be ok to "experiment" on children till we figure out just how much
exactly will cause a problem.

BabyBlues

August 7th 03, 09:29 PM

"Erin" > wrote in message news:bgu5s0$> restaurant
> Nobody disputes that FAS is extremely bad.

FAS is not the only result of alcohol consumption during pregnancy it is
only some of the most severe and noticeable (visible).

>Some just dispute that
> "absolutely none" is the only rational choice in the matter given the
> incredibly fuzzy facts available about infrequent drinking.

I hardly think they are fuzzy. Yes, they are inconclusive about just how
much...but they are not fuzzy they *know* it harms at *some* level. Funny
how in part the very reason a conclusive study can not be done...is that it
is unethical to put the fetus at risk of harm...is why they can't prove how
little is ok or not ok.

>And I think what
> a lot of small-drinking pregnant women like me (none in first trimester, a
> few drinks spread out during the rest of the pregnancy) find annoying
about
> some no-drink proponents is the assertion that we're bad mothers for not
> taking the most conservative approach.

I would say selfish actually.

>This is really a philosophy split
> between those who say you should always strive to control for every risk
and
> those who say that some risk in their life is always going to be there,
and
> will be accepted.
>
> Not erring completely on the side of caution in every single choice you
make
> during pregnancy does not a bad mother make, IMO.

Just because someone is a proponent for zero alcohol does not mean that they
are against any and all risks or feel that only bad mothers would take
them...that is a huge generalization.

> Even medical textbooks that document the horrors of FAS acknowledge that
> nobody can ensure a "safe" pregnancy through their actions.

No of course you can't ensure that...but you can make reasonable responsible
choices. Do you use a car seat for your child? Why? Because it is a
reasonable/responsible approach to take, to prevent possible harm. Your
child certainly will not get harmed every time you get in the car and go for
a drive...so why the need to use the carseat every time ? Would you be
called irresponsible if you didn't use one? Likely YES. Can you ensure your
Childs safety if you use one...no...but you are doing the best you can and
making reasonable steps to ensure no harm. If you didn't use it because
well...you should have the "right" to make your own choices about acceptable
risk...would most agree?...I don't think so...So why do we squirm about the
alcohol issue and try to make it about "personal choice" to take the risk
and anyone who says otherwise is "intolerant". I certainly think personal
choice is important, but I think using that to rationalize alcohol use is
hiding behind your "rights". No...you can't live in cotton cloud for your
pregnancy, but just like other reasonable precautions no alcohol is a
reasonable precaution similar to using a carseat.

Here is an
> interesting quote from a human anatomy textbook by Martini, Timmons, and
> Tallitsch:
> "Although environmental stimuli may indeed lead to developmental
problems,
> such factors are only one component of a complex system normally subject
to
> considerable variation. Even if every pregnant woman were packed in
cotton
> fluff and locked in her room from conception to delivery, developmental
> accidents and errors would continue to appear with statistical
regularity."

"Most of the textbooks used to teach doctors who treat pregnant women still
condone drinking during pregnancy even though health officials have been
recommending no alcohol consumption while pregnant for more than a decade.

Researchers at the Virginia Commonwealth University reviewed 81 obstetrics
textbooks and found that only 14 of them recommending not drinking during
pregnancy. Remarkably, out of the 29 textbooks published since 1991, only
seven recommended abstinence during pregnancy.

"I didn't expect so many recent textbooks to actually condone drinking," Dr.
Mary Nettleman, professor of medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University
and lead author of the study told reporters. "All the major organizations,
such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, public-health organizations -- all advocate
zero drinking during pregnancy."

Some observers believe textbooks editors are hesitant to suggest a total ban
on alcohol during pregnancy, because some women may become upset if they
have been drinking regularly and then find out they are pregnant. The
problem is, there is no known "safe" level of drinking during pregnancy."
http://alcoholism.about.com/library/weekly/aa020805a.htm?iam=PARTNER&terms=Obstetrics

> If people choose not to drink at all during pregnancy, then that's a good
> decision for them. But before they make assertions that those with
> differing opinions are wrong/bad, they should do more research and maybe
be
> a little more respectful and tolerant.
>

I have done a lot of research thank you...differing opinions are fine...but
putting a child at risk IS wrong. Whether it is not using a carseat, or
driving with your child on your lap, or drinking alcohol while
pregnant...unless you are omnipotent and can tell us all just how much is
safe and will not harm.

BabyBlues

August 7th 03, 09:56 PM

"Elaine" > wrote in message > >> In article <to smoking?
found ill effects on the babies.
> >
> > Well....hmmm a few drops is hardly the same as a glass of wine with
> > dinner... or even a few "sips" as some call it...this is a few
DROPS...*one*
> > sip would contain more than that!
>
> No. The fetus gets alcohol through the mother's bloodstream. That
> means that the fetus gets a weight adjusted amount of alcohol. A
> half glass of wine is equivilent to directly giving the fetus a
> third of a teaspoon, which is a few drops. In addition, the mother's
> body helps to process out the alcohol, which lowers exposure
> even more in comparison to a baby.

Uhhh...I don't think so..

"When a woman who is pregnant drinks alcohol, the levels of alcohol in her
baby's blood rise as high as her own. But because the baby's liver is
immature, it cannot metabolise that alcohol as fast as an adult can. So the
baby is exposed to **greater amounts** of alcohol **for longer** than the
mother.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/ask_doctor/pregnancy_drinking.shtml

> >> At some point, the amount of alcohol becomes negligable. Otherwise
> >> pregnant women wouldn't be allowed anything with vanilla extract,
> >> or natural flavors (which are commonly in an alcohol carrier).
> >
> > Well...yes that is likely that at some point alcohol becomes
> > "negligible"...but I think it would be in the few DROPS range as opposed
to
> > the half a glass or more of wine....
>
> Yes, you would *think*. Yet in your last post you said that you couldn't
> *know* what amounts were safe. You are making a judgement about what is
> safe, with no more evidence than women who decide that a half glass
> of wine during pregnancy is safe. There is no difference between
> your methods to make that judgement, the only difference is where
> you draw that line. A sip of wine has more volume than a few drops
> of distilled alcohol, but not much more alcohol.

*sigh* my point is that if you don't know, how can you guess that ANY is
safe. ANSWER>>>you CAN'T...how can you rationalize a little is ok since we
don't know.

>
> > and most "extracts" no longer use real
> > alcohol...they are made so cheaply now...you have to HUNT to find one
"with"
> > alcohol in it here...
>
> Have you called manufacturers? I can't have alcohol derived from
> grain sources. The vast majority of flavors used in the food industry
> are in an alcohol carrier. I would be happy to give you a list of
> producers to call. Industrial alcohol is dirt cheap, and it is far
> and away the least expensive carrier, since it will mobilize both
> the alcohol and water soluble flavors.

Sigh... I have a nephew with allergies...and where I live most "extracts"
no longer use alcohol in their extracts. The use imitation flavors because
it is cheap. Often those actually contain peanut products instead. I have
no idea about other products.

> > So then why do women feel they have this "divine" knowledge "know"
> > themselves what that safe level is? when science is still debating
> > it...shouldn't a mother be the one on the side of *protecting* their
child
> > from even the smallest **CHANCE** of harm???
>
> Are you eating processed foods? Do you eat yeast breads? Do you
> digest your food, or take in intravenously? The bacteria in your
> gut make alcohol as they help you break down your food. At some
> point you have to draw the line.

Sigh...I have not said that pregnant women should live in a bubble...but
hey...if your rationalizations make you feel better...go for it.
*Reasonable* things are all you can do...you can't stop every car accident
from happening, but you can protect your child the best you can...but
securing them in a carseat...and most agree that is a reasonable thing to do
and would not call that ridiculous, and you can prevent one specific
teratogen from harming your baby by avoiding a "luxury" item (alcohol) for a
few months. Seems to me that you have to *do what you can* ...and then just
enjoy the ride.

>
> Your fetus is at risk. All the time. You can't protect against
> the smallest chance of harm. It would be really nice if you could,
> but the reality is that it isn't possible, and if it was possible
> it would drive pregnant women batty.

No, you can't avoid everything..but you can avoid the OBVIOUS ones.

>
> I don't think that anyone has claimed divine knowledge of safety.
> They have made reasoned choices, and their answers aren't all the
> same as yours.

Well...I am not the only one who thinks alcohol should be avoided
completely. But if I said that I was not going to use a carseat because I
don't believe the "proof" is conclusive enough, and the odds are pretty good
that my child will turn out just fine!...would most think that was a
"reasoned choice" that simply is not the same as others? And my choice to
make this "personal" risk assessment for me since I certainly can not avoid
*all* harm anyway?

>
> I am all in favor of discussing specific recent studies that point
> to negative effects of low levels of alcohol. I think it's an
> interesting topic; however, making it an emotional topic doesn't
> help people make good decisions.

Funny but those against abstinence seem to reject all studies as "flawed".
The only response to studies so far here is that they don't prove a "little"
alcohol will harm (or exactly how much) so, there is no good reason to
believe it will harm my child if I have the occasional drink. It should be
an emotional topic...wouldn't your child being harmed in a car accident
(heck any child) make you "feel" something?

BabyBlues

August 7th 03, 09:58 PM

"Elaine" > wrote in message > I'm not minimizing the
risks of FAS, but a sip of wine, or
> even a half glass of wine during pregnancy doesn't cause FAS.
>
I don't think anyone has said a sip or a glass causes *fas*, but there are
many other problems besides fas. The child doesn't need to have fas to have
been affected by alcohol.

Daye

August 7th 03, 10:27 PM

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:17:59 GMT, "BabyBlues" >
wrote:

>The US is not alone is suggesting *abstinence* for pregnant women...included
>in that list is Ireland, Sweden, Canada, Austria, Australia, Denmark..

In Australia, they suggest, but in the same breath tell you that
drinking in moderate is considered safe.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
EDD 11 Jan 2004

Iuil

August 7th 03, 11:04 PM

"Daye" wrote
>
> >The US is not alone is suggesting *abstinence* for pregnant
women...included
> >in that list is Ireland, Sweden, Canada, Austria, Australia, Denmark..
>
> In Australia, they suggest, but in the same breath tell you that
> drinking in moderate is considered safe.
>

Same in Ireland.

Jean

--
"And he said:
Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of
Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, and
though they are with you, yet they belong not to you." Khalil Gibran

Return address is unread. Replies to <firstnamelastname> @eircom.net.

BabyBlues

August 7th 03, 11:05 PM

"Elaine" > wrote in message
...
> BabyBlues wrote:
> > I hardly think they are fuzzy. Yes, they are inconclusive about just
how
> > much...but they are not fuzzy they *know* it harms at *some* level.
Funny
> > how in part the very reason a conclusive study can not be done...is that
it
> > is unethical to put the fetus at risk of harm...is why they can't prove
how
> > little is ok or not ok.
>
> So do the studies in rats, just like they're doing studies on
> larger consumption with rats. Or do it non-randomized, like
> they do with forumula studies. There are ways to do the research
> that you can get past an IRB - no one has done the research.

Yes, there has been study done on animals. Lower levels of alcohol still
present a huge challenge for study because they are often not "visible"
defects or changes but rather result in functional difficulties which are
very hard to study. It is difficult to study problem with "reasoning" and
"comprehension" in rats? Monkeys are a bit better, they do compare somewhat
to the functioning of a human brain. The effects that are severe in FAS
kids actually are far beyond the "visible" noticeable ones...the functioning
ones are by far the most ominous. You could actually talk to an fas person
(who doesn't have visible signs) and not realize how functionally impaired
they are...until you ask the right questions...or until you see them try to
remember, explain, complete tasks...etc.... I can't imagine how hard it will
be to show those types of effects from light alcohol ... How do you
measure those things? Since it is very difficult...more research is being
done on things they CAN measure which means usually "moderate" drinking in
animal studies.

Weinberg concurs. "We need to see more education for both the general public
and physicians about the fact that alcohol can be harmful," she said, "and
that we really don't know what a safe level of drinking during pregnancy
would be. Although the public is now more aware of FAS, they know much less
about the more subtle effects that alcohol can have on a developing fetus.
Even some pediatricians and obstetricians are not very well informed about
the effects of moderate levels of fetal alcohol exposure, although they may
know about FAS.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-08/ace-awa080701.php

>
> <snip what do you think of women who would drink moderately
> during pregnancy>
> > I would say selfish actually.
>
> Is it also selfish to take pain relief drugs during labor?

Well..first of all alcohol is a complete LUXURY item. Not to help reduce
pain. A cocktail at a party is hardly comparable. But FWIW I do think there
should be much less use of drugs in labor and delivery.

What
> about during a c-section? There are known risks to the baby.

Yes, there are...but those are risks that are usually taken as necessary to
the overall safety of the mother or child. I hardly think the risk of
infection or dying compares with a drink for my simple pleasure or desirefor
a BEVERAGE. Now, if you are talking about "convenience"
c-sections...well...sigh...

I also have said that I think you can *not* eliminate *all* risks...life
happens...I am not suggesting living in a bubble...BUT I think there is a
huge difference between reasonable avoidance of a *known teratogen* for the
sole purpose of my enjoyment and pleasure, and avoiding "everything".

>
> > Just because someone is a proponent for zero alcohol does not mean that
they
> > are against any and all risks or feel that only bad mothers would take
> > them...that is a huge generalization.
>
> No - it's statements like
> > differing opinions are fine...but
> > putting a child at risk IS wrong.
>
> would imply that you are against all risks.
> Would you like to rephrase? ;)

Well..I thought it was self-evident that I meant voluntary "unnecessary
risks" for your own "pleasure"..but since it wasn't clear.... "I believe
putting a child at unnecessary risk for your own *pleasure* is wrong" I am
against risks that defy common sense, or are simply selfish "indulgences".
Like driving with your child on your lap, or drinking while pregnant.

>
> > I certainly think personal
> > choice is important, but I think using that
> > to rationalize alcohol use is
> > hiding behind your "rights".
>
> Personal rights are most important when they are
> unpopular.

I am not suggesting they are not important. on the contrary. But I am
suggesting that people use their "rights" to rationalize any behavior that
they choose to do. Making a choice about medical treatment(s) is hardly the
same as *choosing* a *cocktail* while pregnant. A cocktail is a BEVERAGE.
And I think it is hilarious that people will hide behind their "rights" to
have a **beverage** any ol' time they please even if it could harm their
child...because "I" have that **RIGHT**...it is a matter of "personal
choice"...until they prove I am FOR SURE harming my child with this amount
over that amount (that we do know is harmful).

Naomi Pardue

August 8th 03, 02:02 AM

>.funny how
>you easily rationalize it with..."all kids have problems"...so as long as
>they are just like every other kid or it's not that big a deal, what's the
>harm? Yikes...

No, that wasn't my point. It was just that, given that I DIDN"T drink during
pregnancy, what am I allowed to blame my kid's problems on?

>Sigh....so how do you (or anyone) determine what exactly is the "safe"
>limit?

> And again, there *is* concern that there are problems with less but
>since it is not "visible" or often not scientifically "measurable" in a
>study...it is very difficult to "prove".
>

So... if you can't see it, and you can't measure it... I guess I'm confused as
to how you can say that it exists. If a mother says "My child seems a little
restless sometimes," and it turns out that she had two glasses of wine during
her pregnancy, do we blame that on the wine? Or on the fact that all kids (and
all people) have behavior quirks.
Kinda reminds me of a list I saw, some time back, of "symptoms of PMS", which
basically included every imaginable psychological and physical symptom you
could think of. Now, I do not deny that PMS exists, but is it fair to say that
everytime a woman feels fatigued/excited/bloated/heartburned/ nervous/ [200
more symptoms] and it just happens to be in the latter half of her menstrual
cycle, that this MUST be due to PMS?

Historically, Jewish people have always been light/moderate alcohol drinkers.
We use alcohol on ritual occassions. So, presumably, one can assume that MOST
Jewish children, until recently, were born to mothers who consumed alcohol at
least occassionally during pregnancy. (On the Sabbath, on holidays, etc.) Yet,
so far as I know, there is no evidence that Jews are more aggressive than other
people. (One of the studies cited found higher incidence of aggressive
behavior.) Less intelligent? Thinner?

>so it
>seems rather ridiculous to me that people would rationalizes that since we
>don't *know* for a *fact* for sure that those "little" amounts harm,...it
>should be ok to "experiment" on children till we figure out just how much

No-one is experimenting on anyone. Human beings have been drinking alcohol
since time immemorial. And, while it has long been known (long before FAS had
a name) that high consumption of alcohol was harmful to children, there has
never yet been any evidence of harm from low level consumption.

Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

Elaine

August 8th 03, 06:27 AM

In article >, BabyBlues wrote:
>
> "Elaine" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Yes, there has been study done on animals.

Great - do you have a cite for a study on low/intermittent consumption of
alcohol in animals?

> present a huge challenge for study because they are often not "visible"
> defects or changes but rather result in functional difficulties which are
> very hard to study. It is difficult to study problem with "reasoning" and
> "comprehension" in rats? Monkeys are a bit better, they do compare somewhat
> to the functioning of a human brain. The effects that are severe in FAS
> kids actually are far beyond the "visible" noticeable ones...the functioning
> ones are by far the most ominous. You could actually talk to an fas person
> (who doesn't have visible signs) and not realize how functionally impaired
> they are...until you ask the right questions...or until you see them try to
> remember, explain, complete tasks...etc.... I can't imagine how hard it will
> be to show those types of effects from light alcohol ... How do you
> measure those things? Since it is very difficult...more research is being
> done on things they CAN measure which means usually "moderate" drinking in
> animal studies.

Gotcha, we can't see an effect, we can't test for an effect, but we
know that there must be an effect. I will agree that designing the
test would be difficult. What I've seen done, with some success,
is paired studies. You do a study with a large alcohol consumption
and find a measureable result (decreased zinc absorption for example).
Then you repeat the study with lower amounts of alcohol and see
if you still get that same result.

The weakness, of course, is that it's hard to predict exactly how much
damage you can do to zinc absorption before there's a real problem -
but it allows you to show an effect with lower doses.

You can also look at things like neuron counts in various parts of the
brain. The studies aren't as sexy as those done on alcoholic humans though.

> Well..first of all alcohol is a complete LUXURY item.
So is every other individual component of the human diet. Women
don't *need* tuna fish, but we don't preach at them for eating
some anyway. And any single can of tuna can have ludicrously high
amounts of mercury. It appears to be playing russian roulette
to eat canned tuna.

> What
>> about <epidual> during a c-section? There are known risks to the baby.
>
> Yes, there are...but those are risks that are usually taken as necessary to
> the overall safety of the mother or child. I hardly think the risk of
> infection or dying compares with a drink for my simple pleasure or desirefor
> a BEVERAGE. Now, if you are talking about "convenience"
> c-sections...well...sigh...

Oh good, that means that the recommendation of two glasses of wine to
stop pre-term labor should be fine. And an epidural doean't prevent
infection. I suppose it could prevent shock and subsequent complications,
but judging by the few women who have had c-sections where the epidural
didn't take - that's a little farfetched. Pehaps my meaning wasn't clear.

> Well..I thought it was self-evident that I meant voluntary "unnecessary
> risks" for your own "pleasure"..but since it wasn't clear.... "I believe
> putting a child at unnecessary risk for your own *pleasure* is wrong" I am
> against risks that defy common sense, or are simply selfish "indulgences".
> Like driving with your child on your lap, or drinking while pregnant.

Gotcha, no formula feeding, no lunch meat during pregnancy, no early
introduction of solids. On the other hand, two glasses of wine to prevent
pre-term labor should be fine.

>
> I am not suggesting they are not important. on the contrary. But I am
> suggesting that people use their "rights" to rationalize any behavior that
> they choose to do. Making a choice about medical treatment(s) is hardly the
> same as *choosing* a *cocktail* while pregnant.

No, it's identical. I have the right to make my own informed choices
for myself and my children. Several of the choices I have made are
contrary to common medical wisdom. However, I did my research and I
am making the best decisions possible given my unique circumstances.
Sometimes people make choices which lead to bad outcomes. That's a
neccessary component of free choice.

> A cocktail is a BEVERAGE.
A cocktail is a drug, like every other drug. It happens
to be a drug that some people enjoy recreationally, and some
people enjoy for theraputic effects. I might take tylenol for
a round ligament pain. Someone else might have a half glass
of wine. They're both going to effect the fetus, and I just
don't believe that the research is currently mature enough
to tell us which one is safer at those kinds of levels.

Elaine

Elaine

August 8th 03, 02:06 PM

In article >, BabyBlues wrote:
>
> "Elaine" > wrote in message >
>> Great - do you have a cite for a study on low/intermittent consumption of
>> alcohol in animals?
>
> Sorry I have no cite for this as I have research articles etc...on my pc for
> school/work purposes...often through a journal subscription service which I
> can not post links to.

I don't mean a link, I mean a cite. Journal name, author name, title of the
study. Even a title or a title/journal makes the searches much easier.
I'm just going to ask my subscription service or ILL to get a copy for me.

> Well...I am not a researcher...so I am not designing studies...but I do
> think there are *many* respectable studies out there...again the effects on
> comprehension is not a simple thing (like determining zinc absorption).
> Measuring comprehension deficits are difficult especially when not everyone
> will have the same ability normally, let alone after alcohol exposure.

Actually, poor zinc absorption would probably produce symptoms similar
to zinc deficiency, which causes low birth weight and
changes to the CNS. It can also cause a variety of malformations
if the deficiency is servere enough.

Large cohort studies would also be possible to determine abilities
more directly. However, it would need to be longitudial, which is
expensive. You would think that with the giant push for zero-alcohol
tolerance some one be in the middle of such a study now, and publishing
early results. That's how they discovered the differences in IQ
for formula feeding vs breast feeding.

> Well...I think you are simplifying the effects of alcohol on the brain and
> other cells and it's measurability...but nevertheless...I think there is
> some good research out there already...

Um no, that's a real study, and they're finding differences with large
amounts of alcohol consumption. If intermittant alcohol use is an issue,
they should find similar changes with lower consumption.

>
>
>> > Well..first of all alcohol is a complete LUXURY item.
>> So is every other individual component of the human diet.
>
> Uhhh NO. We need some nurishemtn to SURVIVE. We NEED air to breathe...we
> do not need a cocktail.

But we don't need any *particular* food to survive. Alcohol contains
calories that can contribute to the support of life. It also has
negative effects, just like a lot of foods we eat. We don't need a cocktail,
or milk, or bread, or any other individual food. Individual foods are
all luxury items.

> Hardly the same thing....food is a LIFE necessity! Choices about tuna
> fish...well...I really don't think that is the same as choosing an alcoholic
> BEVERAGE...but yah you probably should watch that tuna consumption ;) But
> then again, we also do not have hundreds of thousands of children out there
> suffering from the lifelong effects of canned tuna fish mercury
> overdoses...(that I am aware of)...

They call it Minamata disease, and no, it doesn't effect as many people as FAS,
but if it were your child who was affected, I suspect you would be just as
emotional about that issue as you are about alcohol.

> Well...yup I would avoid lunch meat...the MOD states that the risk of
> Listeria is 20x higher for a pregnant woman...and it isn't very good for you
> anyway...but again lunch meat is *not* considered a teratogen, or known to
> cause life long permanent problems to a child. LOL...unless I have missed
> the boat on the great lunch meat brain damage epidemic! Formula feeding is
> not the "best" option...but again...it is not a *teratogen* that will cause
> a child to be permanent BRAIN DAMAGED if taken in an "unspecified"
> quantity...

Formula feeding statistically looses eight points of IQ. I would
call that mentally impaired at the least.

> Do you really? Not always. You are required by law in many places to
> restrain your child in a carseat or seatbelt. In many palces, you may not
> leave your child unattended at a certain age even if *you* feel (in all your
> "informed-ness" he is mature enough to be left alone.... I don't think it
> is "identical" at all.

Neither of those is a glass of wine or medical treatment. I think it will
be less distracting if I leave my views of those laws out of this
conversation.

>>Several of the choices I have made are
>> contrary to common medical wisdom. However, I did my research and I
>> am making the best decisions possible given my unique circumstances.
>> Sometimes people make choices which lead to bad outcomes. That's a
>> neccessary component of free choice.
>
> Ahhh yes, back to "free" choice...why don't we have free choice to not use a
> carseat? Shouldn't we be able to make our own "informed" choice about that?
> I think free choice is actually important...but at the same time...I hardly
> think that the choice of a "cocktail" is so "sacred" that it should be so
> different from the non-choice of putting your child in a carseat...why are
> you not protesting the nerve of anyone to suggest you shouldn't have free
> "informed" will to chose if your child needs to be in a carseat?

You know, this whole carseat thing is a straw man. Car seats and ingesting
toxins have completely different risk curves. Everytime you get into
a car without a carseat you have essentially the same risk. On any individual
trip, you are no more or less likely to be involved in an accident than
any other trip.

With toxins, like alcohol, your risk increases wih dosage. The more
times you drink, the more likely you are to see effects.

>>I might take tylenol for
>> a round ligament pain. Someone else might have a half glass
>> of wine. They're both going to effect the fetus, and I just
>> don't believe that the research is currently mature enough
>> to tell us which one is safer at those kinds of levels.
>
> Well...I guess it would be better to wait until it is a certainly.
> Especially so no one misses out on happy hour.

You're right - we shouldn't be allowed tylenol *or* wine. They
might have effects on the fetus that are unknown and hard to
test for.

Elaine

Elaine

August 8th 03, 03:52 PM

In article >, BabyBlues wrote:
>
> "Elaine" > wrote in message

>
> ...but I don't think it would be a "concern" anyway...I don't think the
> amount of alcohol in your vanilla extract would ever come near a "half a
> glass" of wine in equivalent alcohol...and I don't think those who feel
> drinking alcohol is perfectly safe are going to only have the amount you
> would get in your hot chocolate form the vanilla extract.

If I have my cocoa every night during my pregnancy, I'll consume
quite a bit more actual alcohol than there is in a few sips of wine.
If I used mouthwash (nasty stuff), I would get even more alcohol, since
it's readily absorbed through the membranes in your mouth.

We're quibbling about amounts that haven't been studied.
There's no more reason to believe that my cocoa isn't a
risk than there is to believe that a single sip of wine
isn't a risk. It hasn't been studied. There is no evidence.
There are no preliminary studies. There have been questions
raised, and that is all.

> Uhhh yes, you CAN avoid the "OBVIOUS" VOLUNTARY risks.

That's a different statement, yes you can avoid the obvious
voluntary risks. No leftovers, no uncooked vegetables, no
lunch meat, no food you didn't prepare with your own hands,
get rid of the cats, no alcohol, no dairy products, the
list goes on and on. It's just inconvenient to avoid all of them.

> I agree that many things are completely out of "our" hands...but honestly,
> does that mean that we not do anything to protect ourselves and our loved
> ones? Do you use carseat, seatbelts? Do you lock your doors at night? Do
> you feel that your whole life is beyond your control so why bother doing
> anything to prevent a possible harm you know you might be able to prevent
> since it is not 100% for sure?

I do what I feel is appropriate, I expect everyone else to be
capable of doing what they feel is appropriate. Everyone tries
to eliminate the risks they care about. Not everyone cares
about the same risks. I care a lot about allergy risks,
since atopic diseases run in both sides of our baby's
family. That means that during pregnancy I'm following
a strict rotation diet, and avoiding a lot of foods. It
eliminates some suggested risk. I care a lot less about
the risks of minute amounts of alcohol, so I don't
worry about it. I don't go out of my way to avoid
alcohol in foods.

>> > The only response to studies so far here is that they don't prove a
> "little"
>> > alcohol will harm (or exactly how much) so, there is no good reason to
>> > believe it will harm my child if I have the occasional drink.
>
> Well then drink and be merry...I guess your "no good reason" and mine are
> rather different. My child would certainly be a "good reason".

Watch your quoting. Both of those statements are yours. The first
is an (apparently) dramatized version of responses you believe
you have recieved to discussions of studies. The second
is your response to your own creation. Neither of them is mine.

> Well...most people on an NG are not interested in the "actual" research
> article.

That's odd, since we've discussed "actual" research articles here
before, on all sorts of topics. Not everyone reads the
full text of the article, or participats in the conversation -
but you aren't exactly getting good participation in
this conversation either, and more than one person
has expressed interest in actual research.

>> Making topics emotional inhibits healthy discussions.
>
> Well...I am not sure when a discussion about anything is NOT emotional...on
> some level...humans are emotional beings...I am not sure anything can really
> truly be discussed without *some* emotion...

I suspect that's true for you, and that as a result, this conversation
was doomed from the beginning.

> Are you really suggesting that a person should be coddled in order to avoid
> hurting their feelings, or to avoid them feeling "defensive" ...people
> should not be told things they disagree with or don't believe in since they
> might do something, like drink in subsequent pregnancies, because I, or
> someone, said it might be damaging to their child? LOL...that is like a
> parent I know who is afraid to discipline their child because it might hurt
> their feelings or their self esteem...

I'm saying that there is a difference between informing people of
possible consequences and calling them bad people, or selfish
people. A clear, honest discussion of the available literature
is the currently recommended intervention, not name calling
and hysteria. Would you like me to cite the studies that found
that patients who decide to limit alcohol on their own are
more likely to follow through than patients who's doctors say
don't facilitate that decision making and instead mandate
compliance?

When Communications Collide with Recipients' Actions: Effects of Post-Message
Behavior on Intentions to Follow the Message Recommendation
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Volume 29, Number 7 (July 01, 2003)
Dolores Albarracín, Joel B. Cohen, G. Tarcan Kumkale

Motivational Enhancement Therapy with Drug Abusers (Miller, W. R., 1995)
Miller, W.R. (1983). Motivational interviewing with problem drinkers.
Behavioural Psychotherapy, 11, 147-172.

Elaine

BabyBlues

August 8th 03, 09:34 PM

"Erin" > wrote in message news:bh0mom$235$> >"Baby
Blues Responded":
> > "Most of the textbooks used to teach doctors who treat pregnant women
> still
> > condone drinking during pregnancy even though health officials have been
> > recommending no alcohol consumption while pregnant for more than a
decade.
>
>
> Actually, I happen to be an expert on college textbooks, as I'm an editor
at
> one of the "big 3" college publishers in the world. The quoted story is
> uninformed. The writer incorrectly assumes that if books don't prohibit
> drinking while pregnant, they must be outdated or wrong, since they don't
> match what the health orgs say.

Well...actually many "college" text now do suggest no alcohol...based on
current research (unless you are suggesting those authors are simply all
puppets of the "health orgs?). I would agree with that article that those
texts are outdated and wrong...along with many physicians who still suggest
a little it ok.

>But if the official US policy on pregnant
> drinking changed a decade ago, then books that existed then and are still
> published today have probably been revised thoroughly 3-4 times since
then.
> The lack of alcohol bans just indicates that the jury is still out in the
> medical community on this issue.

I think it often has something to do with *inaccurately* revised textbooks
not keeping up with current research.. After having been in college for the
past several years...I know for a fact there are many inaccuracies and
mistakes in EVERY text book I have read.

> It's important to realize that medical texts try to remain fairly
apolitical
> in their presentation of information, while health organizations are
> political, public entities whose job is to urge vast amounts of people --
> many of whom are incredibly uninformed about health -- toward better
> behaviors.

"Try" is the key word...there is a some leaning in a direction of certain
belief (political, policy, personal, scientific) by the authors in *every*
textbook...some more obvious than others.

>In acheiving that goal, health orgs routinely decree certain
> facts and guidelines that aren't facts at all, but strategic decisions
> aimed to have the best effect over the general population.
>
> Example: Teeth cleaning. In the US the official recommendation is
something
> like 1 visit every 6 months for professional cleaning. However, talk to
most
> dentists, and they'll admit many people ought to have their teeth cleaned
> every 90 days to prevent problems. But officials realized that most people
> hate the dentist too much to go every few months. Rather than be
completely
> "truthful" in their guide, policymakers reasoned that people might
actually
> go twice a year, and set the policy at that more achievable goal. And it
is
> arguably better if most people go to the dentist every six months than for
a
> handful to go 4 times a year, while the majority of people never go. So is
> the policy a good one? Yeah, I think so. But that doesn't mean it is
> factually in sync with what the evidence says is true or best for
> individuals.

Well...I haven't studied teeth cleaning..and I don't doubt that this does
happen...but as far as alcohol...I have a bit more understanding of that
reality. While I was not directly studying FAS, I have been in seminars,
lectures, and workshops on FAS, I have worked with fas children and adults,
I have talked to dr.s who work with fas patients and I have been
supervised/taught by people doing fas *research*. So...I don't think this
is the same thing. Yes, there *may* be some level that is safe...and I
would be happy if we knew it so it could be said definitively...but since it
is not known...I hardly think suggesting you should abstain since *we don't
know* if a little *is* harmless is the same as ...having your teeth cleaned
every 6 months political "policy" instead of the needed 90 days for some to
make the masses more likely to comply...

>
> In the case of pregnancy and drinking, since no safe amount has been
> scientifically verified yet, health orgs feel it's best to say "none."

Well..it isn't just the "health orgs" that are saying that...it IS also the
scientists who are doing various research (whom I suspect the health orgs
are basing their policies on).

>When
> they say "none," many people will stop completely or cut down to neglible
> amounts, and that is the effect that best helps the population at large.
> Again, I personally think this is a good official policy for health orgs
to
> have regarding pregnancy and drinking. But bottom line: one should not
> assume that the official guideline of "none" automatically translates into
> "a little" alcohol being terrible.

NO...a little alcohol probably is not "terrible" but where exactly should
someone draw the line? The problem is that every woman has a different
"standard" of what a "little" means to them, and no matter how "smart" they
are...they still can not "know" what level is safe and will ensure 100% no
harm will come. And with the research moving the amount they can find
problems due to alcohol in their research lower and lower, where is that
going to stop? People have mentioned a "few sips" but I really doubt that
the "majority" of women who drink during pregnancy are really actually only
drinking a "few sips". A few sips...is what three teaspoons? four five
eight? Or is it more like a glass of wine here and there...a couple of
times a week? Who knows....and who knows how much **IS** OK?

>Health orgs intentionally make gray
> subjects black and white so as not to confuse the uneducated populace
while
> shaping their bahaviors.

Well...then they are obviously not informed about their target
population...women who drink in pregnancy are often MORE educated than not.

>The problem is that sometimes individuals are
> actually more informed than the health policy, but the policy becomes
dogma.

Well....I disagree that this particular "helath policy" is dogma.

>
> So while health orgs are always a good place to start research on a
subject,
> their info should not be taken as verbatim, gospel truth, and articles
that
> rely heavily on them for facts should also be understood to be lacking
> shading on the issue. --Erin

My information comes from many sources (not "just" health orgs)...people who
are working with ARBD, like drs. social workers, policy makes, and even some
researchers. I don't take anything as "gospel" truth...especially if it is
written in a textbook :-0 but I do think that a picture that reflects some
measure of accuracy can be built when you get the same conclusions from a
bunch of different sources...at least enough to *suggest* that there is
enough to warrant caution even over *small* amounts.

BabyBlues

August 9th 03, 02:11 AM

"Elaine" > wrote in message > >
> > Sorry I have no cite for this as I have research articles etc...on my pc
for
> > school/work purposes...often through a journal subscription service
which I
> > can not post links to.
>
> I don't mean a link, I mean a cite. Journal name, author name, title of
the
> study. Even a title or a title/journal makes the searches much easier.
> I'm just going to ask my subscription service or ILL to get a copy for me.

"The rodent research, carried out by Daniel Savage and colleagues from the
University of New Mexico Medical School, suggests that there may be more
subtle effects of low-level alcohol intake that become obvious only later in
life, as more complex tasks are taken on." "Neurologist Michael Charness at
Harvard Medical School agrees. "For every kid with fetal alcohol syndrome,
there are another ten who have been exposed to alcohol, have no obvious
physical defects but do have cognitive problems." The rat results are
striking and not entirely surprising, he says." Savage, D. D., Becher,
M., de la Torre, A. J. & Sutherland, R. J. Dose-dependent effects of
prenatal ethanol exposure on synaptic plasticity and learning in mature
offspring. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 26, 1752 - 1758,
(2002).
-----------------
"Alcohol is a teratogen. There has been *no* teratogenic agent ***yet***
studied in man which has shown a clear threshold effect, i.e. **where the
substance *could* be considered safe at a particular level, beyond which its
teratogenic effect begins to take hold, and alcohol is no exception.
....This explains also why maternal alcohol consumption can affect the
offspring through all gradations of teratogenesis, ranging from transient to
very mildly affected, and from moderately affected right up to the full
blown Fetal Alcohol Syndrome." (Smith DW: Alcohol effects in fetus. In:
Fetal Drug Syndrome; Effects of Ethanol and Hydantoins. Pediatrics in Review
1, American Academy of Pediatrics, 1979)
----------------------
Streissguth AP, Barr HM, Sampson PD: Moderate prenatal alcohol exposure;
Effects on child IQ and learning problems at age 7 1/2 years. Alc Clin Exp
Res, 14(5):66269, 1990
----------------------------
"As stated previously, alcohol is a poison at all levels, and therefore no
totally safe level of alcohol use during pregnancy can be established.
Alcohol-related damage to the fetus has been linked with every form of
drinking pattern, from heavy drinking to intermittent as well as moderate
social drinking i.e. one or two drinks daily most days during pregnancy; and
from very infrequent, but relatively heavy, drinking to one single drinking
binge prior to pregnancy recognition."
"The teratogenic effects of maternal "social drinking" is considered less
detrimental to the fetus than that of abusive drinking, but it can still
nevertheless affect the infant, maybe in a less serious but much more subtle
manner."
Spohr H-L, Willms J, Steinhausen H-C: Prenatal alcohol exposure and
long-term developmental consequences. The Lancet, 341:908-910, 1993
-------------------------
"The most salient point that can be made about alcohol induced fetal damage
is that it is totally preventable, and by informing both prospective parents
of the potential dangers of alcohol consumption before conception, and
particularly all women during pregnancy, we can hope to control the problem.
It is frightening to realize how long the knowledge has been there that
alcohol indeed damages the unborn child, without anyone seemingly worrying
about it. If we could effectively foster the simple fact that "mothering
from conception is direct mothering", and therefore that everything the
mother consumes during pregnancy is also consumed by the developing child,
some of these tragedies might be more easily avoided. This would also be a
major philosophical advance towards the great importance of preventive
medicine." International Journal of Biosocial & Medical Research, Issue
14:2, 1994
----------------
"All the researchers agree that there's no easy answer to the question that
West often faces, Can a woman drink some limited amount of alcohol without
threatening normal fetal development?
"If the agent was, say, something in bathroom cleaner, people would just
stay away from it," West says. "However, since it is alcohol, and they don't
want to give it up, they are interested in how much they can 'get away
with.'""
"Determining the smallest amount of alcohol that would harm a fetus would
require knowing which developmental steps and which underlying mechanisms
may be disrupted by alcohol, Riley says. Even if that information became
clear in animal studies, translating the findings into practical advice
might prove difficult. Species differ in developmental patterns, and many
women don't know exactly when they became pregnant.
The consensus of these basic scientists, then, is that the only safe drink
for a pregnant woman is one without alcohol. After all, Riley says, "how
many cigarettes cause cancer?" Just one cigarette-or one drink-may be
unlikely to cause problems, he notes, but so far, the possibility that it
does some harm can't be ruled out." Science News, Vol. 158, No. 2, July 8,
2000, p. 28.
---------------------
"Maternal alcohol consumption even at low levels was adversely related to
child behavior; a dose-response relationship was also identified. The effect
was observed at average levels of exposure of as low as 1 drink per week."

PEDIATRICS Vol. 108 No. 2 August 2001, p. e34

----------------------
Despite a barrage of studies linking alcohol to pregnancy complications, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported the rate of
frequent drinking among pregnant women *increased* fourfold between 1991 and
1995. Newer studies show more pregnant women are drinking and smoking than
ever before.
-----------------

> Large cohort studies would also be possible to determine abilities
> more directly. However, it would need to be longitudial, which is
> expensive. You would think that with the giant push for zero-alcohol
> tolerance some one be in the middle of such a study now, and publishing
> early results.

There *have* been some longitudal studies...

> > Well...I think you are simplifying the effects of alcohol on the brain
and
> > other cells and it's measurability...but nevertheless...I think there is
> > some good research out there already...
>
> Um no, that's a real study, and they're finding differences with large
> amounts of alcohol consumption. If intermittant alcohol use is an issue,
> they should find similar changes with lower consumption.

They have been finding differences with *large* amounts for decades...the
studies I have found are showing changes at moderate and somewhat at lower
levels...check out the ones I have cited. But no, no one can say for sure
"one" glass of wine is for sure bad...but they can't say for sure it is ok
either...

> > Uhhh NO. We need some nurishemtn to SURVIVE. We NEED air to
breathe...we
> > do not need a cocktail.
>
> But we don't need any *particular* food to survive.

I never said anyone did...that is actually my point...no one NEEDS a
"cocktail" to survive...but some "food" (nourishment) is necessary to
survive.

>Alcohol contains
> calories that can contribute to the support of life.

LOL...so?

>It also has
> negative effects, just like a lot of foods we eat. We don't need a
cocktail,
> or milk, or bread, or any other individual food. Individual foods are
> all luxury items.

I never said you needed any particular item...Individual items may be a
"luxury" no doubt, but having some nourishment is NOT. I said you needed
nourishment to survive, period. However, a *choice* to have a COCKTAIL is
NOT a necessity in any way.

> But
> > then again, we also do not have hundreds of thousands of children out
there
> > suffering from the lifelong effects of canned tuna fish mercury
> > overdoses...(that I am aware of)...
>
> They call it Minamata disease, and no, it doesn't effect as many people as
FAS,
> but if it were your child who was affected, I suspect you would be just as
> emotional about that issue as you are about alcohol.

I didn't say the problem didn't exist... I said "we do not have *hundreds of
thousands of children*..." And again, I think there is a huge difference
between eating what is normally a harmless food that is often healthy for
you...and a COCKTAIL for your own pleasure when it is a KNOWN TERATOGEN.
Tuna fish (despite) the mercury risk...is not considered a "teratogen" under
normal circumstances.

> Formula feeding statistically looses eight points of IQ. I would
> call that mentally impaired at the least.

Again...it is NOT a teratogen. Not the same thing at all...some women can
not breastfeed...I hardly would suggest *not* feeding the child...it is
silly to suggest that feeding a child with "formula" is the same risk as
drinking a cocktail for your pleasure.

> > Do you really? Not always. You are required by law in many places to
> > restrain your child in a carseat or seatbelt. In many palces, you may
not
> > leave your child unattended at a certain age even if *you* feel (in all
your
> > "informed-ness" he is mature enough to be left alone.... I don't think
it
> > is "identical" at all.
>
> Neither of those is a glass of wine or medical treatment. I think it will
> be less distracting if I leave my views of those laws out of this
> conversation.

Well...I think it is the same thing...you don't always have "free choice" to
make an "informed" decision...everything in not up for "free choice" despite
what some may desire. I also don't think a "cocktail" is in the same league
as making a decision of a medical nature.

> You know, this whole carseat thing is a straw man. Car seats and ingesting
> toxins have completely different risk curves. Everytime you get into
> a car without a carseat you have essentially the same risk.

Uhmmm...I disagree. You could be tired, you could be distracted, you could
have had a couple of drinks, your cold medicine could be affecting you (or
someone else's could be affecting them), certain times of the day are worse
than others for collisions, so it traffic volume...you could be driving on a
highway as opposed to a city street...it could be raining or snowing, or the
sun could be shinning in your eyes, different seasons have different risks,
same with holidays...all those factors DO affect the risk curve. It is NOT
essentially the "same" risk "everytime".

>On any individual
> trip, you are no more or less likely to be involved in an accident than
> any other trip.

Inncorrect (see above).

>
> With toxins, like alcohol, your risk increases wih dosage. The more
> times you drink, the more likely you are to see effects.

Exactly...so where is the "for sure" safe amount? (Funny how we even call
it a "toxin" but feel we should be able to have "some"...) Also alcohol
exposure is not *just* about dose...it is also about specific times of
development of the fetus (timing is important)...what the mother has eaten,
drank etc.., her physical "make-up" and the way her body breaks down
alcohol...etc...

>
> >>I might take tylenol for
> >> a round ligament pain. Someone else might have a half glass
> >> of wine. They're both going to effect the fetus, and I just
> >> don't believe that the research is currently mature enough
> >> to tell us which one is safer at those kinds of levels.
> >
> > Well...I guess it would be better to wait until it is a certainly.
> > Especially so no one misses out on happy hour.
>
> You're right - we shouldn't be allowed tylenol *or* wine. They
> might have effects on the fetus that are unknown and hard to
> test for.
>

Well...many women DO avoid what they can...especially things like a
"cocktail" ...and even pain medication, again many women avoid that when
pregnant as much a humanly possible...but I hardly think a LUXURY like a
cocktail equates to taking medicine.

Elaine

August 9th 03, 05:50 PM

In article >, BabyBlues wrote:
>
> "Elaine" > wrote in message > >
>
> "The rodent research, carried out by Daniel Savage and colleagues from the
> University of New Mexico Medical School, suggests that there may be more
> subtle effects of low-level alcohol intake that become obvious only later in
> life, as more complex tasks are taken on."

> Savage, D. D., Becher,
> M., de la Torre, A. J. & Sutherland, R. J. Dose-dependent effects of
> prenatal ethanol exposure on synaptic plasticity and learning in mature
> offspring. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 26, 1752 - 1758,
> (2002).

This study found impairment at amounts equivilent to 1 or 1.5 ounces of pure
alcohol per day, throughout pregnancy. Since your average wine
is around 12% alcohol, that would be a glass or two of wine
every day. Those aren't the kind of levels we have been discussing.

On the other hand, they found no statistical difference between
rats on the 2% diet and controls who had *no* alcohol. 2%
alcohol diets are closer to 3/4 of a glass of wine per day.
There was no effect found in this group, they were statistically
identical to controls.

> -----------------
> "Alcohol is a teratogen. There has been *no* teratogenic agent ***yet***
> studied in man which has shown a clear threshold effect, i.e. **where the
> substance *could* be considered safe at a particular level, beyond which its
> teratogenic effect begins to take hold, and alcohol is no exception.

Vitamin A is a teratogen. Vitamin A is considered safe, and in
fact neccessary at some levels, and has been found to be dangerous
at higher levels. There's a fuzzy grey line in the middle, but there
is a line.

> ----------------------
> Streissguth AP, Barr HM, Sampson PD: Moderate prenatal alcohol exposure;
> Effects on child IQ and learning problems at age 7 1/2 years. Alc Clin Exp
> Res, 14(5):66269, 1990
> ----------------------------

This is looking at binge drinking and what I would consider high doses
of alchol. 2 or more drinks per day found a statistical difference
of 7 IQ points, *but* the authors note that all IQs were in the
normal range. This is less than the difference found between
formula feeding and breast feeding, and we let parents make that
choice. Note that I don't have access to full text on this one, so
I'm basing my comments on the abstract. If you'd like to discuss
this study further, let me know and I'll request it through ILL.

> "As stated previously, alcohol is a poison at all levels, and therefore no
> totally safe level of alcohol use during pregnancy can be established.
> Alcohol-related damage to the fetus has been linked with every form of
> drinking pattern, from heavy drinking to intermittent as well as moderate
> social drinking i.e. one or two drinks daily most days during pregnancy; and
> from very infrequent, but relatively heavy, drinking to one single drinking
> binge prior to pregnancy recognition."
> "The teratogenic effects of maternal "social drinking" is considered less
> detrimental to the fetus than that of abusive drinking, but it can still
> nevertheless affect the infant, maybe in a less serious but much more subtle
> manner."
> Spohr H-L, Willms J, Steinhausen H-C: Prenatal alcohol exposure and
> long-term developmental consequences. The Lancet, 341:908-910, 1993

I have the full text of this article, and this quote doesn't exist in it.
It's a followup study on kids with FAS that says the damage
has long term consequences.

> International Journal of Biosocial & Medical Research, Issue
> 14:2, 1994
> ----------------

My library and services don't seem to carry this journal, and they don't
have a website. If you have an author for this article, or even some
page numbers I can try to request it through ILL, but with this little
information they can't get it for me.

> Science News, Vol. 158, No. 2, July 8,
> 2000, p. 28.

Since you didn't provide a title, and keywords like alcohol, fetus and pregnancy
don't bring up this article, it'll have to wait until Monday. Science news
isn't exactly a primary source for research either.

> ---------------------
> "Maternal alcohol consumption even at low levels was adversely related to
> child behavior; a dose-response relationship was also identified. The effect
> was observed at average levels of exposure of as low as 1 drink per week."
>
> PEDIATRICS Vol. 108 No. 2 August 2001, p. e34

The abstract on this one sounds good, and while the catalog says my
university doesn't have this volume, I'm pretty sure it's lying. I'll
see if I can get full text on monday.

>> Large cohort studies would also be possible to determine abilities
>> more directly. However, it would need to be longitudial, which is
>> expensive. You would think that with the giant push for zero-alcohol
>> tolerance some one be in the middle of such a study now, and publishing
>> early results.
>
>
> There *have* been some longitudal studies...

I haven't found any that study the kind of low level drinking
we are discussing (one drink during pregnancy, or a few
sips during pregnancy). You haven't provided any such studies.

> They have been finding differences with *large* amounts for decades...the
> studies I have found are showing changes at moderate and somewhat at lower
> levels...check out the ones I have cited. But no, no one can say for sure
> "one" glass of wine is for sure bad...but they can't say for sure it is ok
> either...

There are lots of things people do that haven't been proven completely
safe. What makes a single glass of wine more reprehensible than
albacore tuna twice a week? Both mercury and alcohol have been shown
to cause birth defects at higher doses. You can't _prove_ the safety
of either one at those dosages.

> I never said anyone did...that is actually my point...no one NEEDS a
> "cocktail" to survive...but some "food" (nourishment) is necessary to
> survive.

So what makes a particular teratogenic food worse than another?

>
>>Alcohol contains
>> calories that can contribute to the support of life.
>
> LOL...so?

> I never said you needed any particular item...Individual items may be a
> "luxury" no doubt, but having some nourishment is NOT. I said you needed
> nourishment to survive, period. However, a *choice* to have a COCKTAIL is
> NOT a necessity in any way.

Neither is a choice to have tuna fish, yet we allow women to make
that choice *every day*. On what basis would you take away the choice
to consume amounts of alcohol that haven't been proven to cause damage?

> Tuna fish (despite) the mercury risk...is not considered a "teratogen" under
> normal circumstances.

Mercury is. We're allowing (and in some cases encouraging) women to ingest
low levels of a teratogen. We're calling these low levels "safe".

>> Formula feeding statistically looses eight points of IQ. I would
>> call that mentally impaired at the least.
>
> Again...it is NOT a teratogen. Not the same thing at all...some women can
> not breastfeed...I hardly would suggest *not* feeding the child...it is
> silly to suggest that feeding a child with "formula" is the same risk as
> drinking a cocktail for your pleasure.

I would suggest that there are known risks (beyond the reduced IQ) for
forumla feeding, and that in *many* cases formula is a convenience, or
a pleasure, not a necessity. Your argument against small amounts of alcohol
is that we must avoid all of the risks we can control, and that small
amounts of alcohol *may* present a risk to your child. Formula feeding
statistically _does_ put children at risks that affect them for the
rest of their lives.

>> With toxins, like alcohol, your risk increases wih dosage. The more
>> times you drink, the more likely you are to see effects.
>
> Exactly...so where is the "for sure" safe amount? (Funny how we even call
> it a "toxin" but feel we should be able to have "some"...)

Umm, oxygen is a toxin, vitamin A is a toxin, selenium is a toxin.

Lots of things are toxins in the appropriate dosage. Most
of them appear to cause no harm at lowered dosages. I
merely object to the knee-jerk reaction of "alcohol
is bad".

>> You're right - we shouldn't be allowed tylenol *or* wine. They
>> might have effects on the fetus that are unknown and hard to
>> test for.
>
> Well...many women DO avoid what they can...especially things like a
> "cocktail" ...and even pain medication, again many women avoid that when
> pregnant as much a humanly possible...but I hardly think a LUXURY like a
> cocktail equates to taking medicine.

Yes, but we don't call a woman selfish and tell her that she
has probably caused permanant and irreversabal damage to her
fetus if she take tylenol for a headache. Or would you be
that judgemental?

You know, I'm getting the feeling that you're opposed to
alcohol even when the drinker isn't pregnant. Is it
possible that bias is coloring your viewpoint?

Elaine

BabyBlues

August 10th 03, 02:22 AM

"Elaine" > wrote in message >>>
>
> I haven't found any that study the kind of low level drinking
> we are discussing (one drink during pregnancy, or a few
> sips during pregnancy). You haven't provided any such studies.

Well...Again...I have said there is *not* a study that says "one glass" is
for sure "unsafe"...I have said that studies ARE showing that lower and
lower levels ARE showing some damage or possible damage, much lower than
previously thought...and that *they do not know* what level is 100%
safe...so how can *any* woman know that? There have been studies that show
moderate and "lower" levels are highly suspect and have caused negative
changes/damage, but not as "low" as many who say "one" glass....again...I
highly doubt those who are choosing to drink are having "one" solitary
single glass or strictly a "few" sips their *entire* pregnancy anyway
(especially since one of the criticisms here about studies is that women
"under report" so then obviously you must believe that they would under
report here about "a few sips too). My whole point has been that the
research is continually pointing to lower and lower levels being a cause for
concern. I don't know what level is safe...neither do researchers, nor does
any pregnant woman. Yes, it is quite possible that a single glass or a few
sips is ok...but were is that line?

Any study that even suggests the *possibility* *as many do) that they think
lower levels are a problem and might cause some subtle damage is never going
to satisfy anyone who feels that until it is 100% proven that their one
glass of wine will *for sure* harm...they will dispute it has *ANY*
validity...or it is even a *valid* reason to *consider* not drinking that
glass...so no matter what study I cite, you will never feel it is *enough*
proof of even the *possibility* to not have the "occasional" one for those
who choose to ...since again it isn't *proven* beyond doubt that that *one
glass* is harmful. So...again...the believe and the studies *are* out there
that raise significant concerns...no not *irrefutable* proof...but serious
concerns...obviously again...that is simply not enough...people would rather
have 1000% proof before they give up a single simple luxury.

>
> > They have been finding differences with *large* amounts for
decades...the
> > studies I have found are showing changes at moderate and somewhat at
lower
> > levels...check out the ones I have cited. But no, no one can say for
sure
> > "one" glass of wine is for sure bad...but they can't say for sure it is
ok
> > either...
>
> There are lots of things people do that haven't been proven completely
> safe. What makes a single glass of wine more reprehensible than
> albacore tuna twice a week? Both mercury and alcohol have been shown
> to cause birth defects at higher doses. You can't _prove_ the safety
> of either one at those dosages.

Sigh...you are simply muddying the waters about one subject by adding into
it any and all risks to a pregnant woman. I appreciate that "life" happens,
it comes with risks, and no one can live in a "bubble"...all I am saying is
that *cocktails* are not -by any stretch- a necessary item for *any* reason
whatsoever. They are a luxury item that is 100% for sure known to be
harmful *at some levels*....which research has proven at lower and lower
levels in the past few decades...there is *no* proven safe level.

>
> > I never said anyone did...that is actually my point...no one NEEDS a
> > "cocktail" to survive...but some "food" (nourishment) is necessary to
> > survive.
>
> So what makes a particular teratogenic food worse than another?

Sigh...most foods are *not* considered teratogens by any stretch...yes,
mercury is a teratogen, but "tuna" is not considered at teratogen. Alcohol
is *ALWAYS* considered a TERATOGEN. You can debate that at some level it is
"safe" (by your and others "belief") but it is still at ANY/ALL LEVELS
considered a TERATOGEN.

However, a *choice* to have a COCKTAIL is
> > NOT a necessity in any way.
>
> Neither is a choice to have tuna fish, yet we allow women to make
> that choice *every day*. On what basis would you take away the choice
> to consume amounts of alcohol that haven't been proven to cause damage?

Again because "tuna" is not a poison. Yes, it can contain high levels of
mercury...and yes that *mercury* is dangerous...but it is hardly the same
thing. Again, I think there is a HUGE difference between "tuna" and a
"cocktail"...

>
> > Tuna fish (despite) the mercury risk...is not considered a "teratogen"
under
> > normal circumstances.
>
> Mercury is. We're allowing (and in some cases encouraging) women to ingest
> low levels of a teratogen. We're calling these low levels "safe".

Well...I have seen suggestions that women *avoid* tuna...(not "encouraging
them)...but again...I think this is simply muddying the waters...we could
debate every single thing anyone does and compare that..but I have not said
that anyone should not take *any* risk at all...or live in a bubble...my
concern is the absolutely unnecessary *cocktail* indulgence. Alcohol is not
considered a teratogen (poison) only *sometimes*....it is *always*
considered so... it has only not been proven yet at what "level" is 100%
safe..it has also NEVER been proven to BE SAFE at a *lower level* The
assumption that since there doesn't *seem* to be any damage...is not
scientific proof that there is none... Perhaps those who feel it is safe at
some level could provide 100% irrefutable proof that there is absolutely no
damage from some "low" level? Pretty tough...especially since we can never
know a child's potential, IQ, comprehension or reasoning skills they *might*
have had...etc...

>
> >> Formula feeding statistically looses eight points of IQ. I would
> >> call that mentally impaired at the least.
> >
> > Again...it is NOT a teratogen. Not the same thing at all...some women
can
> > not breastfeed...I hardly would suggest *not* feeding the child...it is
> > silly to suggest that feeding a child with "formula" is the same risk as
> > drinking a cocktail for your pleasure.
>
> I would suggest that there are known risks (beyond the reduced IQ) for
> forumla feeding, and that in *many* cases formula is a convenience, or
> a pleasure, not a necessity. Your argument against small amounts of
alcohol
> is that we must avoid all of the risks we can control, and that small
> amounts of alcohol *may* present a risk to your child. Formula feeding
> statistically _does_ put children at risks that affect them for the
> rest of their lives.

Sigh...again...if you equate feeding a child the same as giving the child a
cocktail....what can I say...??? I think it is a ludicrous comparison.

> >> With toxins, like alcohol, your risk increases wih dosage. The more
> >> times you drink, the more likely you are to see effects.
> >
> > Exactly...so where is the "for sure" safe amount? (Funny how we even
call
> > it a "toxin" but feel we should be able to have "some"...)
>
> Umm, oxygen is a toxin, vitamin A is a toxin, selenium is a toxin.

Sigh...yup...yah got me... but I am not sure what your point is...that since
we "breathe" some oxygen it is the same as having a "little" alcohol?

Yes, many things are hazardous in large or concentrated quantities...but
that does not automatically mean that the opposite is always true...that "a
little" in moderation...can't hurt...

>
> Lots of things are toxins in the appropriate dosage. Most
> of them appear to cause no harm at lowered dosages. I
> merely object to the knee-jerk reaction of "alcohol
> is bad".

Well...I would hardly call researchers saying alcohol *might* be dangerous
at lower levels and they can **not** say *any* level is safe, so better to
*protect your child*, as a "knee-jerk" reaction.

>
> >> You're right - we shouldn't be allowed tylenol *or* wine. They
> >> might have effects on the fetus that are unknown and hard to
> >> test for.
> >
> > Well...many women DO avoid what they can...especially things like a
> > "cocktail" ...and even pain medication, again many women avoid that when
> > pregnant as much a humanly possible...but I hardly think a LUXURY like a
> > cocktail equates to taking medicine.
>
> Yes, but we don't call a woman selfish and tell her that she
> has probably caused permanant and irreversabal damage to her
> fetus if she take tylenol for a headache. Or would you be
> that judgemental?

Sigh. Again, I have said that I hardly think medication is the same as a
*cocktail*. But no, I would certainly NOT call a woman who was in pain and
took a medication (that is strongly believed to be safe) *selfish*. Yes,
again I have said that life *has* risks...but I don't think people need to
add to them *unnecessarily* by indulging in a "*luxury* of a *cocktail*. I
*do* think that *IS* rather selfish.

>
> You know, I'm getting the feeling that you're opposed to
> alcohol even when the drinker isn't pregnant. Is it
> possible that bias is coloring your viewpoint?

Well....you are quite mistaken, so no, it is not "coloring my viewpoint". I
am not opposed to alcohol at all (I rather enjoy it: at appropriate times).
I am only opposed to using it while pregnant (or when you could get/be
pregnant). Again, I have seen first hand the horrors of alcohol exposure on
a child (and adults)....it isn't pretty, so that however, I am sure *IS* a
bias "coloring my viewpoint". I highly suspect that alcohol is *never*
benign...in fact I have recently seen an article that suggests alcohol can
affect sperm quality, may be involved in first trimemester m/c's and even
reduce the likelihood of IVF working (in those who drank in the *three*
months before IVF). So while they don't prove the "smallest" amounts are
100% for sure harmful...it raises a bunch more questions about just "how
much is safe" and when...(at least for me and some others)....

BabyBlues

August 10th 03, 09:43 PM

"Elaine" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>
> > My whole point has been that the
> > research is continually pointing to lower and lower levels being a cause
for
> > concern. I don't know what level is safe...neither do researchers, nor
does
> > any pregnant woman. Yes, it is quite possible that a single glass or a
few
> > sips is ok...but were is that line?
>
> I don't know. You don't know. Science doesn't know. There are lots of
> substances that we don't know an absolutely safe dose for. Only
> alcohol seems to get this reaction.

Well...I disagree with that. There are tons of things that are suggested to
women to avoid completely during pregnancy...but those are not "alcohol" or
anything really desirable, they do get the same "reaction" only it is
inconsequential. Many things that are a *concern* are completely
avoided...it seems that alcohol gets that reaction because people don't want
to give it up...since it is something *pleasurable*..there are tons of
things that are not 100% proven unsafe but people will avoid them
(especially pregnant ones) since they don't *need* to use that substance
anyway...or it is not a *hardship* to give up.

> > Any study that even suggests the *possibility* *as many do) that they
think
> > lower levels are a problem and might cause some subtle damage is never
going
> > to satisfy anyone who feels that until it is 100% proven that their one
> > glass of wine will *for sure* harm...they will dispute it has *ANY*
> > validity...or it is even a *valid* reason to *consider* not drinking
that
> > glass...so no matter what study I cite, you will never feel it is
*enough*
> > proof of even the *possibility* to not have the "occasional" one
>
> There's definately people in the world who think that lower levels may
> be a problem. I don't think that anyone has disputed that. What I have
> disputed is how low the level needs to be to be safe. In some studies,
> women who only have a half glass of wine during their pregnancy would
> be used in the control group with non-drinkers. In other studies, they're
> grouped with people who have a drink a day.

Well..no doubt any and every study has flaws. What I find amusing is that
people can see that there is no known safe level (it hasn't been *proven*
safe at any level either) but would rather err on the side of *waiting* for
the conclusive proof, so as not to miss out on a *good* thing when it comes
to alcohol.

>
> > Sigh...most foods are *not* considered teratogens by any stretch...yes,
> > mercury is a teratogen, but "tuna" is not considered at teratogen.
Alcohol
> > is *ALWAYS* considered a TERATOGEN. You can debate that at some level
it is
> > "safe" (by your and others "belief") but it is still at ANY/ALL LEVELS
> > considered a TERATOGEN.
>
> Alcohol is considered a teratogen. Wine is not a teratogen.

Uhhmmm YES, it is...the *grapes* at one point are not...

>
> Your own words admit that alcohol at some level isn't a concern:
> "I said that the vanilla extract that is normally available
> to buy here does not contain alcohol but I don't think it would be a
> "concern" anyway"

I said *I don't think*...and I have always said *KNOWBODY KNOWS* so *how*
can *you* (meaning anyone)???
>
> All we're really discussing is when it becomes a concern. That
> appears to be somewhere in between a glass a day and vanilla
> extract. That's an *awfully* wide line, and there's lots of room
> within it for people to look at the available studies and make
> their own decisions.

Well... I find it amusing that most people feel *they* are smarter and
better able to understand alcohol and it's effects on a growing fetus that
the hundreds of scientists who have studied the subject and can not say
themselves what is for sure a safe level. It seems ridiculous to be
splitting hairs (about a known dangerous substance) about a glass vs.
two...just so it might be *ok* to have the one, or even half...

>
> > Well...I would hardly call researchers saying alcohol *might* be
dangerous
> > at lower levels and they can **not** say *any* level is safe, so better
to
> > *protect your child*, as a "knee-jerk" reaction.
>
> No, it's the statement alcohol "might" be dangerous at levels under
> 1 unit per day being transformed into "pregnanct women shouldn't be
allowed
> any alcohol under any circumstances" that I call a knee-jerk reaction.

Well...I understood what you said...but I disagree that because of
inconclusive research, (but growing suspicion) that at lower and lower
levels of a known teratogen might be harmful, "so best to avoid it for a
*FEW* months" (8-9) is hardly an *unreasonable* "knee-jerk" reaction.

> > Again, I have seen first hand the horrors of alcohol exposure on
> > a child (and adults)....it isn't pretty, so that however, I am sure *IS*
a
> > bias "coloring my viewpoint".
>
> You know, that's pretty understandable. People who have seen birth
defects
> that they believe are preventable tend to advocate for the total avoidance
> of whatever they believe caused the defect.

Is that "people" in general, people you have known, people from a study?
Because you can *not* extrapolate *likelihood* based on science, logic, or
common sense unless it is 100% conclusive and based on that *exact*
situation done in a study that had absolutely no flaws or room for doubt
that that was 100% certain to have been the cause=effect relationship of
those people's actions.

..
However, that doesn't magically
> produce science to support your case. In this case, science isn't there
> quite yet.

Sigh...I have never said there was 100% proof or a study that said their was
either...I have said that it seems to me that there are "enough studies",
showing a *pattern*, a good possibility, a likelihood, to suggest a real
possibility that there *is* likely concern for alcohol at lower levels and
that researchers themselves *do not know* if any level is safe...so how can
you or anyone be certain what level is safe. It may not have been proven
"harmful" but I have also not seen *proof* that it is safe at some
level...you would think there are so many women who do believe they know
what level *is* safe...that they would have gotten a study to counteract the
"knee-jerk" reaction of those other researchers.

>
> > I highly suspect that alcohol is *never*
> > benign...
>
> And this suspicion isn't coloring your point of view at all?

Yes, that certainly is...however, I think that there is enough research to
suggest that it would be prudent for pregnant women to avoid it *for a few
months* just in case...*regardless* of "how low" *I* personally think that
line is which is irrelevant since ...we all agree there *is* a LINE....all I
have been saying is that I don't think any pregnant woman can determine
where that line is (no matter how informed, smart, or educated she is).
Isn't your belief that *you* can know where that line is as a "informed,
educated" woman coloring your point of view?

>
> If you read enough medical research, very little is truly
> benign. Most things just haven't been studied enough.

Sigh...I have said so many times...yes, life is full of risks and yes, you
can't avoid every little thing...but I think it is a ridiculous attitude to
say that since I can't control or avoid *all* risks...heck why bother
controlling some, or the ones I can control?

>
> You know, I came into this discussion to play devil's advocate,
> I didn't plan to consume any alcohol (even avoiding extracts and
> overripe fruit) during my pregnancy. However, the lack of substance
> behind your emotional arguments, and my careful reading of the
> available literature have convinced me that there is a safe
> lower level of alcohol consumption. That level is well under a
> unit per day, and may even be well under a single unit on any
> given day, but I firmly believe now that it does exist.

Well congratulations!!! for being better at understanding the complete
alcohol effect on the unborn child better that the hundreds (thousands) of
researchers who have been working on that for decades. I hope you will
share with everyone... the 100% guaranteed level that is safe for you, for
me, and for all pregnant women, so we too can enjoy a cocktail knowing there
is absolutely no way this will harm a child. So...where is that the *line*?
I have changed my mind too and I want to know just exactly how *much* I can
100% *safely* consume!!