Oh the pull of the easy, dramatic headline.
Lauredhel, over at Hoyden About Town, has two interesting, detailed posts up recently about the, shall we say, divergance between what a scientific study and a set set of agency guidelines, respectively, actually say, and what's been been reported about them. It's all Aussie, but I know the same things happen here (and presumably booze and pregnancy aren't that different down under, physically).
In the first, she takes apart a study that finds an increased risk of pre-term birth for binge drinkers (shocking, I know) and, with very slim margins of confidence, women who drink heavily in the first trimester and then stop (but not, interesting, those who keep going. It would be interesting to come up with a mechanism for why that would be). It does not find an increased risk for light drinking. Also, much of its data appears to be pretty tentative.
But the coverage of it says the report states that "abstinence is still the safest option" (It might be. I did. But the report says no such thing) and also gets the data about the trimesters wrong. Laurdehel takes both the original study and the coverage apart in minute detail.
In the second, quite similarly, she notes some health guidelines that, based on no new evidence, reverse their previous stance that a light amount of drinking is OK while breastfeeding and start suggesting abstinence, though retaining a level-headed description of what would constitute a cautious approach to alcohol and lactation. The coverage (1) implied that there was some new evidence that it's more dangerous than previously believed and (2) never even mentioned the existence of the more nuanced guidelines.
It's easy to pick on journalists, sometimes too easy, but it's also necessary sometimes, because they have all the same cultural biases and habits (like infantilizing women and being alarmist about pregnancy) as everyone else.
Photo by timomcd.
More by this author:
