Why is this advice given? Well because there isn't enough evidence on the chemical risk to the foetus from food packaging and cosmetics!
Its critics say it is alarmist advice but the RSOG says its paper on this is to give informed choice, to empower and not scare.
So a full list of what they recommend has been issued. It is interesting in as much as that if these products are not great in the body when you are pregnant, they probably are to be seriously considered all the time.
We know that plastic containers can leach Bisphenol A and Phthalates into food and water.
Fresh food above processed food and tinned food is always preferable and that many shower gels and cosmetics contain ingredients that you wouldn't consume if they were on your dinner plate, but we seem happy to apply them to the skin!
The advice of put nothing on your body you wouldn't first put in your mouth, is not bad advice to follow perhaps!
Many products like to list that they are Paraben free, SLS free, aluminium free - so this must be a selling point....consumers are looking for these not to be in products.
The link to the full story on the BBC is as follows http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22754944
What really interests me is that once on this BBC site you can link through to the NHS site
Here you will find the full list of what to avoid etc but on the right hand side, you will see how the flu jab and whooping cough jab are being pushed to pregnant women!
Ironic, as there is this long list of 'food' to be avoided and chemicals that at any other time, are deemed to be 'safe' enough to be allowed in the food or cosmetics etc but as it is unethical to trial vaccines in pregnant women and on growing foetuses, then how on earth can we be sure that these two vaccines are safe?
Totally illogical. Yes it is right for women to be cautious and to be informed on chemicals in food, household products and cosmetics and in that vein it must also be right that women should be informed of what is in the vaccine and if these jabs have been tested on pregnant women, and how long ago was that, were is the data to show that there are no undue side effects to the developing baby or child as they grow - and if that data isn't there, which given the unethical aspect of that testing this, then that should be declared as well.
It is well worth bearing in mind who tells you they are safe...When the manufacturer carries out their own safety trials, that is hardly unbiased and this is the case in vaccines (re the JCVI document that i linked into on a previous blog)
It can be a little bit like the fox reassuring the chickens!
Much like Dr Chris Flower from The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association, quoted in the BBC article telling us 'there is no need for anyone to worry' and there may well be no need to worry, after all we don't see people dropping like flies at the use of normal household products do we? Or do we? The accumulative effect may be quite a different story for some people.
In the same article Prof Sharpe admits that for most environmental chemicals we do not know whether or not they really affect a baby's development and that would take years to establish.
What we do know, is that if we don't have the exposure, then we don't need to to play a waiting game.
Apply the same criteria to the flu jab and the whopping cough vaccine. Up until now the advice has always been take nothing during pregnancy. My midwife suggested avoidance of even a mere aspirin, not that I would need any convincing to avoid any such things during my pregnancy, that as she said, was the best way of giving the unborn child the healthiest start and minimal risk.
If there is a need to give advice on minimising the amount of tuna that is eaten in pregnancy due to its high mercury levels, then what about the known neurotoxins that are within vaccines.
We surely must apply the same logic to those as well as food.
Have a look at this link and scroll down to the comment...worth considering...
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/Safety-and-side-effects.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment