Worry-free pregnancy: vegetarian moms-to-be can relax. A meatless diet is healthful for both mother and child

Vegetarian Times, Sept, 1997 by Carol Wiley Lorente

My best friend Joan had three agonizing pregnancies. The term "morning sickness" doesn't describe what she went through. The nausea and vomiting -- not just in the morning but all day and for months -- made her question each decision to have another child.

During the first trimester, Joan rarely ate more than half a sandwich a day. She tried to take supplements to make up for her lack of food, but they made the nausea worse. By the time her bouts with morning sickness subsided, she was several months into each pregnancy and several pounds lighter than when she conceived. Yet Joan eventually gained weight and gave birth three times to beautiful, full-sized healthy babies. And she successfully breastfed each one.

Everyone knows of at least one woman like Joan who got nowhere near the recommended calories or nutrients during the first part of her pregnancy -- the time, we're told, when nutrition is most critical -- but whose babies didn't seem to suffer any consequences. Why, then, all the nervousness about a vegetarian pregnancy? Even when vegetarians are eating far better than the Joans of the world, why are they routinely told that they should eat meat, fish, eggs or at the very least, dairy products -- or they'll never get the full spectrum of nutrients they need for an uncomplicated pregnancy and a healthy baby?

The answer is that there is no simple answer. Because nutrition is not an exact science, the uncertainty leaves room for personal bias, disagreement and even fear. The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDAs) say that you need a daunting 1,200 milligrams (mg.) of calcium every day; the World Health Organization (WHO) says you need only 500 mg. Why would international guidelines be less than half of the American guidelines? After all, we're always given the impression that those Third World mothers are malnourished; don't they need more nutrients? Which guidelines does your doctor follow? Who can you believe? And how on earth can anyone consume the RDAs of 1,200 mg. of calcium, 30 mg. of iron and upwards of 80 grams (g.) of protein a day?

Chances are, you can't. For the most part, trying to follow the standard dietary guidelines when you're pregnant leads to frustration rather quickly. But relax. When you look at all the information and strip it of cultural biases and false assumptions, the picture gets clearer. It's not necessary to follow a specific dietary regimen during pregnancy. If you are eating a variety of unrefined foods and satisfying your growing hunger without excess fat or sugar, chances are as good for you as for a nonvegetarian on a sensible diet that you and baby will be just fine.

However, as another pregnant friend of mine says, "In pregnancy, there's always room for paranoia." So let's examine the misconceptions that first, you need meat -- or fish, eggs or dairy products -- for a healthy pregnancy and second, that you cannot get all the essential nutrients you need on a vegetarian diet.

First, understand that the idea that one needs meat to get all the necessary prenatal nutrients is a cultural assumption, not a scientific fact. There is no indication in the medical literature that the addition of meat to a pregnant woman's diet improves the outcome of her pregnancy or somehow results in a healthier baby. This is true of fish, eggs and dairy products. There's plenty of evidence that vegetarian and vegan women have healthy pregnancies and good-sized, healthy babies. (We'll discuss this later.)

Second, it may be true that most vegetarian women cannot meet the RDAs for pregnancy, but don't panic. Most meat eaters cannot meet the requirements either. The RDAs are intimidating -- the requirement for iron, for example, is practically impossible -- so it is important to remember to put them in perspective.

The RDAs indicate the highest amount of each nutrient needed to avoid a deficiency in some people, says George Beaten, professor of nutrition at the University of Toronto and a member of numerous WHO committees on nutrition. In other words, a very small portion of the population may require to get 30 mg. of iron per a day to avoid anemia, Beaton says. "But very few people have requirements that are that high. Most won't have a problem with less than the recommendation."

That's fact, not opinion. The National Research Council committee that developed the RDAs discussed this built-in "safety factor" in its 1989 report. For example, the committee set the calcium requirement for pregnancy at 1,200 mg. per day. That doesn't mean you must have 1,200 mg. per day. It means that if you're among the people whose bodies are least able to absorb all the calcium they eat, you may require that much calcium to absorb the needed amount.

The next obvious question is "What is the needed amount?" But there's no answer to that question, because no one knows how much of any given nutrient your body absorbs or needs. So how much calcium should you get? Nutrition experts usually say that 75 percent of the RDA is acceptable, but again, your body may be different.