AIBU to think that a lot of foods on the pregnancy banned list...

[PurplePidjin]

...are also those banned by predominantly Old Testament based religions?

Prawns, crab, predatory fish like marlin and shark, bottom feeders like mussels etc

Actually, not just the OTHER based religions like Judaism and Islam. Afaik Hindus and, Buddhists have similar guidelines (but I know far less about those)

Coincidence?

... I don't like blue cheese so no issue there

SGB - I have never looked at it that way before but you are so very right.

Interestingly two major outbreaks of listeria were caused by lettuce, and I can't recall seeing that on the list of no-nos.

Solidgold am with you in general principles about the fact that either food is safe or not regardless of pregnancy but I think you might be overthinking the controlling part - I actually don't think there is a giant conspiracy. OP the Hindu and Buddhist tendency to vegetarianism is because they believe that all living things have a "soul" (atman) and we are reincarnated as any kind of living thing depending on our karma, so eating meat is generally not regarded as acceptable (this is a vast oversimplification by the way but you get the idea )

The lists vary enormously between countries too so I am sceptical about the whole thing. I haven't been able to eat any solid food for weeks, am on meal replacement drinks instead. If I had a sudden moment of fancying a pre-packaged raw egg and shellfish sandwich I would absolutely eat it. (Though it's hard to imagine it would stay down for long.)

9w pregnant and not enjoying it AT ALL.

solidgoldbrass gets me vote.

I thought this might tickle some of you wondering about the commandements, whilst I can't find anything from Moses relating to pre-packed salad, there is this important 11th commandment: www.flickr.com/photos/amitai/102603403/

Oh look, I can't spell - I wonder if I'm pregnant again?

I agree with solid too, the blanket prohibitions on certain foods are less about genuine risk than about restricting pregnant women's choices.

You can see it in the "no alcohol" advice, which is not based on real risks but on trying to stop women getting drunk whilst pregnant. They are deliberately giving an unnecessarily restrictive message because they don't trust women to stick to a drink or two.

Similarly women were advised to stay away from peanuts (in some cases all nuts!) for years because of a theory that it might cause peanut allergies in children if their mothers ate peanuts while pregnant. Nutritious food was taken off the menu (well not of those of us who ignored it) because of an unproven possibility.

It is useful to know about the risks there are, and might be. It's important to know that listeria can pass the placenta, and that a very mild illness for the woman can have catastrophic effects for the foetus.

It's also important to know that listeria is very, very rare and that food is prepared to avoid giving people food poisoning.

Maybe public health messages need to be simplistic, but if so there needs to be a higher standard applied before healthy, nutritious food is put on the "banned" list.

Having pregnant women approach food as though they have some kind of weird list-based eating disorder does not seem a great outcome for mother or baby (however much some women enjoy the restrictions).

kalidasa that is exactly like me - I think with hyperemeis eating whatever you fancy is just fine. Has anyone ever actually met a real person who has got salmonella from raw eggs?? There was a salmonella outbreak traced back to Cadburys chocolate a few years ago..

SGB I do agree, drove me mad when I was pg - all these things to worry about, and some more obvious risks not forbidden - I've known people get sick from cooked prawns, but they aren't banned. The blanket ban on alchol is all about not trusting women to not get plastered.

The consultant at our maternity hospital said that every year they would review pregnancies that ended in MC or stillbirth. There would be a significant number of pregnancies that ended due to listeria. Therefore they would advise people accordingly.

Their job is to care for pregnant women and advise them. Can you imagine the outrage if they had this information and kept it to them self?

I think you're partially right SGB, eg about uncooked eggs, but as ATIYL says, listeria has very specific risks for foetuses which it doesn't fit the general population. Likewise vitamin A overdose is a pg-specific risk.

Oh and OP, the ban on shark/marlin/swordfish is due to mercury buildup up the food chain, which is a post-industrial risk AFAIK hence irrelevant to the ancient Hebrews.

Of course Jehovah could have put the warning in early (which would be a bit harsh on the OT Hebrew women) but in that case you'd have expected him to include a bit about Stilton as previously mentioned.

The annoying thing about Listeria is that to be totally safe you need to rule out a whole range of stuff from your diet, and nobody's prepared to tell you to give them all up, so women in each country are given a random incomplete list.

SGB your reasoning is not entirely correct. While I agree very few people get any of the forms of food poisoning simply from eating the proscribed foods when not pregnant, two things need to be considered:
Pregnancy can make you more prone to certain forms of food poisoning/food borne bacteria
Whilst having those bacteria can pass unnoticed in the non-pregnant woman, they can have disastrous effects in the pregnant woman.
Take toxoplasmosis, which can be found in uncooked meats. Many of us pick this up while not pregnant and do not notice the effects. If we pick it up while pregnant, it can lead to miscarriage or developmental problems in the foetus.
Control of women's behaviour, or simple sensible precaution?
On a more contentious note, seriously, are you 5? What's with this, "Ooh, they won't let me eat camembert, they're trying to control me, boo hoo!" Government health warnings aren't your mother, you don't need to stamp your feet and complain they're trying to control you because of a bit of sensible advice.

Agree with notforlong and MamaChoo

Lots of infections such as listeria, salmonella, E.coli are notifiable to the HPA and DoH who collate all this information from hospitals and GP surgeries. When I contracted Campylobacter I had to fill out a two page form stating things like what I had eaten in the previous days, where I thought I'd contracted it etc, etc . The DoH then review their public health advice based on this information. Like anything else they're only advising, it's up to you if you want to take heed of the advise.

Pregnant women are also advised to have flu jabs, is this some shady governemnt conspiracy to inoculate women with toxins and control our minds or simple advice based on the fact that pregnant women presented at A&E with a greater severity of symptoms and complications than non-pregnant women?

I consider myself to have been very lucky. I was pregnant and delivered in Oman. I was never told to avoid anything at all.
Alcohol is not drunk by the nationals, blue, or in fact any cheese is not part of the diet and most fish/seafood is virtually still breathing when you buy it.

I went through the lists when pregnant and decided to cut out the ones which were teratogenic/seriously bad for the baby but not the others - so I ditched the liver, blue steak and swordfish type things but merrily ate shellfish right the way through. I was so sick for so many months that if I'd denied myself sushi I think I'd have faded away. I think my view was based partly on the fact that I have always eaten vast amounts of fish/shellfish and never once got ill and the only time I've ever had proper evil food poisoning was from chicken in a restaurant.

I remember having marlin the lunchtime of my second sweep figuring that at 9 days overdue it was a pretty safe bet that the baby's brain was pretty well developed and not too much at risk!

Oh and I avoided nuts as per the advice at the time (allergies on both sides of the family but no one who had ever had anaphylaxis) and ended up with a DS allergic to nuts .

So would I be totally PFB (I think you'd already guessed that!) to not even have a couple of posh prawn things from m&s and a smoked salmon sandwich at a family dinner in a couple of weeks?

Do what you feel happy with - to be honest, once you're a parent life is one long string of tiny risk assessments (well the advice/rules/whatever say this, but really I want to do that...is it ok/worth it/dangerous and am I a bad parent for even thingking this?) - I wouldn't blame you for delaying starting that for a few more months if you're happy with it even though I'd have eaten them like a shot!

OP is probably right about the links. We know that it's necessary to take care with shellfish even in a cool climate, pregnant or not. The ancient Israelites weren't daft! Some foods are just more risky than others, and access to modern fridge facilities doesn't always negate that.

AThingInYourLife is right about the alcohol advice too. There simply isn't any evidence that moderate consumption is harmful- and no, I do not wish to start a debate about whether it is reasonable or not to avoid all alcohol just in case, I don't care whether other pregnant women do it or not. The whole reason for the no alcohol rule is because we're assumed to be incapable of understanding what a unit is. Personally, I can tell the difference between a shot of vodka and a bottle. There are women chugging down a bottle a day in pregnancy. But they evidently ignore guidelines anyway, as that's too much whether pregnant or not.

The alcohol advice being such bullshit undermines other things, too. I didn't realise I was pregnant and had been drinking before finding out, including a binge at a wedding two days before. When I spoke to a midwife, she reassured me that it'd probably be fine. Which was the right thing to do: it probably will be, and even if it isn't there was no advantage to me worrying about it. She also impressed upon me that I shouldn't drink at all from now on, even moderately. It was nonsensical to imply that my binge at 4 weeks 4 days was likely to be fine, while a glass of wine two days later would be harmful. I knew she had to push the party line. But when women are offered nonsensical advice, of course some then stop trusting the giver.

None of the foods you've listed are "on the pregnancy banned list". The list doesn't ban anything, they're just recommendations.

I have just read the list. What a load of bollocks. If you cook food properly, eat a varied healthy diet, and practise good hygiene then you should be fine.

SGB yes, it's all about control.

personally i have always read it like this: i haven't any history of adverse effects from eating those foods. none at all.

so i probably wouldn't eat raw oysters, but i would deffo eat a prawn sandwich.

the stats recorded do not record whether or not those few - it really is a tiny minority - women had any particular vulnerability to food poisoning prior to pregnancy.

the one time i had food poisoning of any kind, it was contaminated water...

the whole 'no Peanuts' thing demonstrates the crapness of The Precautionary Principle.

Fwiw the midwife made me a lovely cuppa at my booking in appointment, so there's a dollop of bullshit to the caffeine thing too I reckon

I think the OP has a point though in that many of the dietary restrictions in bible for example and Torah are really about avoiding food poisoning in hot countries with at the time, often poor sanitation or access to clean water. But some people still follow them in places like the UK when there is no need to.

But then the Bible, etc are essentially historical documents so the advice they give is relevant to the times.

If it was about control it would be a ban... It is not a ban but guidance. Guidance gives you information which allows you to make a decision. Your decision on what you eat/drink/vaccinate against.
There are lots of issues about control in our society today, this is not one of them.