Alarmism or Just the Plain Truth?

Friday 7th of June 2013 | Category: Pregnancy News | Written by: Siobhan Thomas

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has this week released a paper suggesting that pregnant women and their unborn babies may be at risk from chemicals that we all use in our everyday lives. The chemicals that are considered possibly harmful include those found in cosmetics such as moisturisers and sun screens, chemicals in plastic and canned food packaging and those used in non-stick frying pans. The RCOG suggests that women are better off being made aware of the potential dangers and to minimise their exposure where possible, without making impractical changes to their lives.

Ill-founded and senseless scaremongering?

There has been a strong backlash from healthcare professionals suggesting that the paper is alarmist and poses an unnecessary risk of increased stress to pregnant women.

Mumsnet CEO Justine Roberts described the list as 'bamboozling' and said in practice, the large number of things to avoid made the advice 'almost impossible to follow'. Members of the site followed suit with a number of (quite witty!) remarks about the ease with which we might follow such guidelines.

I agree that the guidance is vague, and its helpfulness is limited as it avoids giving any specific advice on lifestyle changes. However, the paper is quite clear that the advice is based on a perceived potential risk associated with certain chemicals and that there is currently no evidence to prove that these risks are real.

If bodies such as the RCOG are to refrain from offering advice until there is indisputable evidence to support it, then for how long must we sit in ignorance whilst scientists work on proving their long-held suspicions? And if their suspicions were to be proven several years from now, wouldn't they then be accused of unfairly withholding their theories and concerns from the general public?

Shall we ignore the advice of professionals because there is no evidence?

No we shouldn't. For starters, the advice isn't necessarily as restricting as the headlines are making out. We don't need to give away our new cars, bin our frying pans and leave the nursery undecorated. It's about making informed decisions. The paper explains that there may be risks with certain products and that, as a precaution, we ought to use them less often if we can.

Whilst most of us probably won't want to give up our daily cosmetic routine, there are bound to be elements of it that we can go without - perfume for example. Many women find that they are often put off their usual cosmetics during pregnancy anyway, usually because they find the smell overpowering or because it makes them nauseous. One reader on the Mail Online commented that 'During my morning sickness the smell of new clothes and clothes shops made me very queasy! I had to stop shopping and wearing new clothes! Was awful! Did make me wonder though if body was attempting to avoid something.' And who knows, maybe there is some truth in the idea that our bodies deliberately encourage us to avoid certain chemicals.

It is good for us to know that there are concerns about products we use all the time, regardless of the lack of evidence. The report isn't going to see me stopping using my non-stick pan altogether, but that's only because I probably use it about 3 times a month. I may, however, take a closer look at the label on my daily moisturiser and be more restrained with the air freshener and cleaning products around the house (not such a difficult one for me!).

Would we follow the guidance if there was more proof?

Much of the criticism of the new paper is based on the fact that women are already quite restricted during pregnancy insofar as they aren't supposed to drink, smoke or eat certain foods. I agree that pregnancy does seem constricting at times - I was at a wedding this weekend with a free bar, rare beef canapés, a goat's cheese starter, a delicious looking evening cheeseboard and no decaf coffee and believe me I was feeling the effects of the 'rules' that day! But in all seriousness, I would rather put up with 'going without' than munch and glug such days away without realising the risks to my baby.

Of course I might have eaten and drunk all the wrong things throughout my pregnancies and still been lucky enough to have full-term healthy babies - but I would have reduced my chances of doing so. And chances are exactly what we're talking about here. Nobody is saying that bathroom cleaning products will definitely cause your baby to be pre-term or have developmental issues, they're just saying that too much exposure might increase the chances of such problems. And yet so many people are incapable of putting this logic into perspective, here is a comment made by a reader of the Mail Online (although there are plenty of similar ones to be found on other sites):

'Considering our ancient ancestors gave birth to perfectly healthy babies in the most appalling conditions it demonstrates what a fragile species we have become.'

For starters, whilst I am sure lots of our ancient ancestors gave birth to healthy children, a significant proportion of them did not. Their infant and maternal mortality rate was significantly higher - probably not because they were overdoing it with the hairspray but because overall they didn't have the advice and healthcare that we have today. I chose the above comment because it perfectly sums up the realms of people wittering on about how they or their parents drank or smoked during pregnancy and still gave birth to healthy babies. There are plenty of others suggesting that because advice during pregnancy is sometimes confusing, it shouldn't be followed at all.

When I was 18 I once got a lift home with a drunk driver and I was OK - this doesn't prove it was a safe thing to do, it just proves I was a silly (but lucky) teenager! Of course drink driving has more obvious risks but the logic is the same - the more people that follow the health advice that we are given, the better their chances of a healthy life, pregnancy and child.

I realise that the concerns raised in the new paper differ to those related to drinking and smoking, because they have not been proven. But I would rather hear of the potential risks anyway so that I can make my own mind up and make sensible informed decisions about my lifestyle.