Another scaremonger for pregnant Mums

[Maggie1]

Why oh why do they do this unless they've got positive evidence. Yes everybody knows to steer clear of chemicals but moisturiser and shower gel.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... icals.html

[mrs boodles]

I heard something about that this morning wasn't tinned food on the list as well or something like that. The world has gone barmy Maggie, how on earth did people manage before all this.

[Maggie1]

What I can't understand is shower gel and skin conditioner. Something they encourage for stretch marks.

[aishakali]

Just glad my pregnancy days are well and truly over. I would never have had 4 healthy kids in this day and age according to the expurts!

[Mo]

I've not read it BUT if you go back far enough 'before all this' people didn't feel the need to put things on their skin.
And we use/eat so many new things (that weren't around for much of history) that it's hard to sort out what causes what. Firms are allowed to sell them, then it's left to someone else to sort out any evidence of harm.
No idea if the research is robust this time, but wouldn't you rather alarm bells rang than firms keep on saying 'there's no proof that it hurts'.

[Stef]

I listened to a radio debate on it. It's the tone of the 'advice' and the fact that it is almost impossible to avoid some of the 'dangerous' things and the length of the list makes it impossible to remember everything.

One point was that new mums trying their best could be unecessarily worried if they forgot one of the things on the list. There was no guidance on how to avoid the items listed and nothing to say how 'dangerous' the items are or how that had been decided/tested. That's why some are labelling it scaremongering - all potential horror and no advice on how to set about minimising it.