There's been a lot of good science
coming out of universities lately on the causes of alcohol use
disorders and the health consequences of drinking. I try to report
on most of it, even when it comes in direct conflict with previous
research. Who's to say the old research isn't... well... old?
Sometimes the confusion is the result
of careless reporting not the studies themselves. Take for example
the breast cancer research announced April 8 (see “Report clouds alcohol, breast cancer connection”). The study concluded that
moderate alcohol use doesn't make breast cancer less survivable after
diagnosis. Several media outlets interpreted the findings to mean
alcohol doesn't increase breast cancer, which was not the study's
focus. In fact, alcohol consumption remains the only dietary factor
shown to increase breast cancer risk.
The new research confirmed that point, but said it didn't make the
breast cancer drinkers get more fatal than non-drinker's breast
cancer.
This week, a new study was released on
alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Headlines from the
study claimed “Light drinking during pregnancy may not harm baby”
based on observations of children born to mothers who reported
drinking one or two drinks a week during pregnancy.
Here are excerpts from two other
studies from my archive that suggest otherwise.
Alcohol causes low birth weight even when a mother has treatment 12 months prior
A study of 1,107 first-time mothers released April 15 by
Australia's University of New
South Wales found an increased risk of low birth weight
even if the mother was treated for an alcohol use disorder 12 months before conception. Fetal alcohol
spectrum disorders (FAS) have often been connected with
drinking after conception. This is the first study connecting
problems with newborns with drinking alcohol prior to
conception.
The results of the study were outlined at the annual
congress of the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand
in Adelaide. The researchers found women with drug or alcohol problems, even problems that were addressed, are up to four times more likely to have a
low-birth-weight baby.
-- (article continues here)
Drinking during pregnancy drops the
child's IQ by age eight
The physical deformities resulting from alcohol
use during pregnancy have been well known for years, but a
study released November 15 in Britain proves the drinking
impairs mental performance in elementary school. Researchers
found an eight point drop in Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores
among third-graders whose mothers drank during pregnancy. The
point is not the eight points, it is that there was a
measurable difference between kids who had mothers who drank
during pregnancy versus kids whose mothers abstained.
The study is one of the first
of its kind to track the genetic changes brought about by
prenatal alcohol use. It did not include heavy drinkers,
but rather focused on alcohol consumption that ordinarily
would be considered “moderate.” The moderate drinking
caused changes in four specific genes in the children and
later resulted in the lower IQ scores. (article continues here)
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that drinking alcohol during pregnancy can lead to FAS: Birth defects, cognitive problems and disabilities. They are some of the most preventable birth defects and developmental disabilities. The CDC also points out that there is no amount of alcohol that is safe to drink while pregnant, and all drinks with alcohol can hurt a fetus.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that drinking alcohol during pregnancy can lead to FAS: Birth defects, cognitive problems and disabilities. They are some of the most preventable birth defects and developmental disabilities. The CDC also points out that there is no amount of alcohol that is safe to drink while pregnant, and all drinks with alcohol can hurt a fetus.
Responsible parenting – and common sense – tend to side with the CDC on this one. Who wants to find out nine months later that the study or the headlines about moderate drinking being ok were wrong?
No comments:
Post a Comment