Megnut has a great post on how she ate during pregnancy and why – instead of just following every one of the ridiculous list of items Not To Eat, she actually researched why you’re not supposed to eat them. If it crosses the placenta, it’s bad – listeria mostly affects pregnant women and harms the baby. Salmonella, on the other hand, well, it’s not fun, but Megnut writes it’s not really worse for pregnant women than anyone else.

It’s quite clear that the recommendations are far from objective truth. In the US, sushi is banned for pregnant women. In Japan, it’s highly recommended as very beneficial for pregnant women. In Norway and the US (and no doubt other countries), drinking any alcohol during pregnancy means you’re purposefully harming your unborn child. In Australia and the UK, they recommend you “consider abstinence”, and that if you do choose to drink, you should have a maximum of seven standard drinks a week if in Australia and four in the UK, and never more than one or two at a time. Apparently in Australia this policy was introduced in 2001, and reversed the previous (1992) recommendation that all pregnant women abstain completely from alcohol. (Source: review of policies on alcohol use during pregnancy in English speaking countries) In the Southern European countries, I think a glass of wine with dinner is assumed, even when you’re pregnant. The thing is, it’s quite clear that heavy drinking, especially binge drinking (five or more standard drinks on a single day), causes fetal damage that is often severe. But there appears to be no evidence whatsoever that moderate or light drinking (a glass of wine with dinner) causes fetal damage – but they haven’t been able to prove that it doesn’t so no wine for mum. Interestingly, the Australian review of policies found that only one country’s policies were based on a systematic review of the scientific literature on the topic: Great Britain.

And yes, we’ve been thinking a baby might be rather nice. I guess I’d better read up on listeria vs salmonella and sushi vs mercury. What with all the environmental poisons in our food, I expect there’s not really anything that’s really safe to eat.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “conflicting advice for pregnant women

  1. Johan

    A colleague of Danish origin noted how what’s healthy for her during pregnancy changed as she crossed the ÷resund. In Sweden, health authorities preach total abstinence, while in Denmark they suggest that a glass of wine or two is not all that bad, since it is important that the mother-to-be feels good too. Similar confusion applies to eating recommendations while breast-feeding (it was debated here in Sweden about a year ago, that most of the recommendations given are not based on any scientific studies whatsoever, but simply an evil state conspiracy to discipline mothers).

  2. JoseAngel

    Well, eating and drinking dangerous food is better than not eating ordrinking at all. Which you might end up doing if you listen to everything they say.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.