Marijuana is extremely dangerous to the fetus in the womb, study finds
Source: CNN
Using marijuana during pregnancy is linked to poor fetal development, low infant birth weight, dangerously early deliveries and even death, according to a new meta-analysis of research.
'The most striking finding is the increased risk of perinatal mortality — death either during the pregnancy or shortly after the pregnancy,' said obstetrician and lead study author Dr. Jamie Lo, an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and urology in the School of Medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.
'Prior work we've done shows prenatal cannabis use impacts fetal lung function and development, reducing the baby's lung volume,' Lo said. 'We've also found that there is significantly decreased blood flow and oxygen availability in the placenta. These are the likely underlying mechanisms driving some of our findings.'
The placenta is a critical link between the mother and the developing fetus, delivering oxygen, nutrients and hormones necessary for growth. When that link is damaged, both the mother and the fetus are at risk.
Despite the potential harms to the baby both before and after birth, use of marijuana during pregnancy is rising. A 2019 analysis of over 450,000 pregnant American women ages 12 to 44 by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found cannabis use more than doubled between 2002 and 2017.
The majority of marijuana use occurred during the first three months of pregnancy, the study found, and it was predominantly recreational rather than medical.
'There is a mistaken perception that because marijuana is natural and plant-based, it's not harmful,' Lo said. 'I remind my patients that opium and heroin are also plant-based. Tobacco is a plant, and alcohol is also made from plants.'
Using alcohol during pregnancy causes fetal alcohol syndrome. Smoking damages a fetus's developing lungs and brain — it is also a cause of SIDS, or sudden infant death syndrome, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Taking opioids, such as fentanyl, heroin or cocaine, are well-known causes of birth defects, poor fetal development and stillbirth, plus there's a high risk the baby will be born addicted and have to undergo withdrawal.
These medical outcomes are known despite the lack of gold-standard clinical trials asking pregnant women to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, take heroin, cocaine, oxycodone or fentanyl and then compare the outcomes to pregnant women who abstained. Such research, of course, would be grossly unethical.
Thus, because a randomized clinical trial of the impact of cannabis on a fetus will never occur, scientists focus on the outcome of self-reported use by pregnant mothers.
'This systematic review is unique in that we only reviewed studies in which cannabis was used during pregnancy,' Lo said. 'Prior work has included studies which also looked at cannabis use along with other substances such as nicotine or alcohol.'
The new research, published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, analyzed 51 studies with over 21 million participants.
Use of marijuana during pregnancy was linked to a 52% higher risk of preterm delivery before 37 weeks — full term is 40 weeks of gestation — and a 75% higher risk of low birth weight, which is less than 2,500 grams, or roughly 5.5 pounds at delivery, the study found.
Only six studies looked at the impact of cannabis on mortality. Those studies found a 29% higher risk of infant death associated with the use of marijuana during pregnancy.
The new meta-analysis used the GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) approach to rating the quality of each study. In a prior analysis published in 2024, Lo and her team rated available studies as very low or low certainty, which means the evidence in the studies was limited and the findings not reliable.
Just a year later, existing evidence was upgraded to low to moderate certainty. A moderate grade indicates researchers are reasonably confident in using that information for decision-making but recognize that future research might refine conclusions or recommendations.
'Research is evolving quickly in this area,' said Brianna Moore, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Colorado School of Public Health Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora. She was not involved in the new study.
'This review found that as more studies are conducted with consistent results, there is more certainty that there is an association between prenatal exposure to cannabis and adverse birth outcomes,' Moore said in an email.
In addition to believing that marijuana is safe because it's natural, expectant parents are also getting mixed messages about the health harms of cannabis.
'Perceptions of safety are compounded by the increased availability and legalization of cannabis,' Lo said. 'In addition, health care providers are poor at counseling due to confusion over conflicting studies. Therefore, there's no clear public health messaging.
'We're trying to change that by updating systematic reviews and producing peer-reviewed clinician briefs to help guide clinical counseling and management.'
Historically it has been difficult to investigate cannabis use because weed has been illegal — and still is — in many states, while any studies that were undertaken had to follow strict federal regulations.
Modern research into the potential harms of cannabis is still in its infancy. Older studies, often done in the 1980s when marijuana was much less potent, may not reflect today's reality, experts say.
Research over the last decade has linked marijuana use to cognitive decline and dementia, complications during elective surgery, and an increased risk of some cancers. Weed users are nearly 25% more likely to need emergency care and hospitalization, according to a 2022 study.
Any level of marijuana use may raise the risk of stroke by 42% and heart attack by 25%, even if there is no prior history of heart disease and the person has never smoked or vaped tobacco. Weed has also been linked to cardiac arrhythmias such as atrial fibrillation; myocarditis — an inflammation of the heart muscle — spasms of the heart's arteries and a higher risk of heart failure.
Young people who use marijuana are more likely to develop long-lasting mental disorders, including depression, social anxiety and schizophrenia, and drop out of school, the CDC said. Studies show overuse of marijuana by youth with mood disorders leads to a rise in self-harm, suicide attempts and death.
Daily use by adolescents and adults can result in another unpleasant side effect: uncontrollable vomiting, according to a 2021 study. And a 2020 study found children born to marijuana users had more psychotic-like behaviors and more attention, social and sleep problems, as well as weaker cognitive abilities.
'Ideally, it's best not to be exposed to THC, which is the psychoactive ingredient of cannabis, no matter what form you're using,' Lo said.
See Full Web Article
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How one planet is revealing why it's so hard to detect life beyond Earth
Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more. A tiny sign revealed in April seemed like it might change the universe as we know it. Astronomers had detected just a hint, a glimmer of two molecules swirling in the atmosphere of a distant planet called K2-18b — molecules that on Earth are produced only by living things. It was a tantalizing prospect: the most promising evidence yet of an extraterrestrial biosignature, or traces of life linked to biological activity. But only weeks later, new findings suggest the search must continue. 'It was exciting, but it immediately raised several red flags because that claim of a potential biosignature would be historic, but also the significance or the strength of the statistical evidence seemed to be too high for the data,' said Dr. Luis Welbanks, a postdoctoral research scholar at Arizona State University's School of Earth and Space Exploration. While the molecules identified on K2-18b by the April study — dimethyl sulfide, or DMS, and dimethyl disulfide, or DMDS — are associated largely with microbial organisms on our planet, scientists point out that the compounds can also form without the presence of life. Now, three teams of astronomers not involved with the research, including Welbanks, have assessed the models and data used in the original biosignature discovery and got very different results, which they have submitted for peer review. Meanwhile, the lead author of the April study, Nikku Madhusudhan, and his colleagues have conducted additional research that they say reinforces their previous finding about the planet. And it's likely that additional observations and research from multiple groups of scientists are on the horizon. The succession of research papers revolving around K2-18b offers a glimpse of the scientific process unfolding in real time. It's a window into the complexities and nuances of how researchers search for evidence of life beyond Earth — and shows why the burden of proof is so high and difficult to reach. Located 124 light-years from Earth, K2-18b is generally considered a worthy target to scour for signs of life. It is thought to be a Hycean world, a planet entirely covered in liquid water with a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, according to previous research led by Madhusudhan, a professor of astrophysics and exoplanetary science at the University of Cambridge's Institute of Astronomy. And as such, K2-18b has rapidly attracted attention as a potentially habitable place beyond our solar system. Convinced of K2-18b's promise, Madhusudhan and his Cambridge colleagues used observations of the planet by the largest space telescope in operation, the James Webb Space Telescope, to study the planet further. But two scientists at the University of Chicago — Dr. Rafael Luque, a postdoctoral scholar in the university's department of astronomy and astrophysics, and Michael Zhang, a 51 Pegasi b / Burbidge postdoctoral fellow — spotted some problems with what they found. After reviewing Madhusudhan and his team's April paper, which followed up on their 2023 research, Luque and Zhang noticed that the Webb data looked 'noisy,' Luque said. Noise, caused by imperfections in the telescope and the rate at which different particles of light reach the telescope, is just one challenge astronomers face when they study distant exoplanets. Noise can distort observations and introduce uncertainties into the data, Zhang said. Trying to detect specific gases in distant exoplanet atmospheres introduces even more uncertainty. The most noticeable features from a gas like dimethyl sulfide stem from a bond of hydrogen and carbon molecules — a connection that can stretch and bend and absorb light at different wavelengths, making it hard to definitively detect one kind of molecule, Zhang said. 'The problem is basically every organic molecule has a carbon-hydrogen bond,' Zhang said. 'There's hundreds of millions of those molecules, and so these features are not unique. If you have perfect data, you can probably distinguish between different molecules. But if you don't have perfect data, a lot of molecules, especially organic molecules, look very similar, especially in the near-infrared.' Delving further into the paper, Luque and Zhang also noticed that the perceived temperature of the planet appeared to increase sharply from a range of about 250 Kelvin to 300 Kelvin (-9.67 F to 80.33 F or -23.15 C to 26.85 C) in research Madhusudhan published in 2023 to 422 Kelvin (299.93 F or 148.85 C) in the April study. Such harsh temperatures could change the way astronomers think about the planet's potential habitability, Zhang said, especially because cooler temperatures persist in the top of the atmosphere — the area that Webb can detect — and the surface or ocean below would likely have even higher temperatures. 'This is just an inference only from the atmosphere, but it would certainly affect how we think about the planet in general,' Luque said. Part of the issue, he said, is that the April analysis didn't include data collected from all three Webb instruments Madhusudhan's team used over the past few years. So Luque, Zhang and their colleagues conducted a study combining all the available data to see whether they could achieve the same results, or even find a higher amount of dimethyl sulfide. They found 'insufficient evidence' of both molecules in the planet's atmosphere. Instead, Luque and Zhang's team spotted other molecules, like ethane, that could fit the same profile. But ethane does not signify life. Arizona State's Welbanks and his colleagues, including Dr. Matt Nixon, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of astronomy at the University of Maryland College Park, also found what they consider a fundamental problem with the April paper on K2-18b. The concern, Welbanks said, was with how Madhusudhan and his team created models to show which molecules might be in the planet's atmosphere. 'Each (molecule) is tested one at a time against the same minimal baseline, meaning every single model has an artificial advantage: It is the only explanation permitted,' Welbanks said. When Welbanks and his team conducted their own analysis, they expanded the model from Madhusudhan's study. '(Madhusudhan and his colleagues) didn't allow for any other chemical species that could potentially be producing these small signals or observations,' Nixon said. 'So the main thing we wanted to do was assess whether other chemical species could provide an adequate fit to the data.' When the model was expanded, the evidence for dimethyl sulfide or dimethyl disulfide 'just disappears,' Welbanks said. Madhusudhan believes the studies that have come out after his April paper are 'very encouraging' and 'enabling a healthy discussion on the interpretation of our data on K2-18b.' He reviewed Luque and Zhang's work and agreed that their findings don't show a 'strong detection for DMS or DMDS.' When Madhusudhan's team published the paper in April, he said the observations reached the three-sigma level of significance, or a 0.3% probability that the detections occurred by chance. For a scientific discovery that is highly unlikely to have occurred by chance, the observations must meet a five-sigma threshold, or below a 0.00006% probability that the observations occurred by chance. Meeting such a threshold will require many steps, Welbanks said, including repeated detections of the same molecule using multiple telescopes and ruling out potential nonbiological sources. While such evidence could be found in our lifetime, it is less likely to be a eureka moment and more a slow build requiring a consensus among astronomers, physicists, biologists and chemists. 'We have never reached that level of evidence in any of our studies,' Madhusudhan wrote in an email. 'We have only found evidence at or below 3-sigma in our two previous studies (Madhusudhan et al. 2023 and 2025). We refer to this as moderate evidence or hints but not a strong detection. I agree with (Luque and Zhang's) claim which is consistent with our study and we have discussed the need for stronger evidence extensively in our study and communications.' In response to the research conducted by Welbanks' team, Madhusudhan and his Cambridge colleagues have authored another manuscript expanding the search on K2-18b to include 650 types of molecules. They have submitted the new analysis for peer review. 'This is the largest search for chemical signatures in an exoplanet to date, using all the available data for K2-18b and searching through 650 molecules,' Madhusudhan said. 'We find that DMS continues to be a promising candidate molecule in this planet, though more observations are required for a firm detection as we have noted in our previous studies.' Welbanks and Nixon were pleased that Madhusudhan and his colleagues addressed the concerns raised but feel that the new paper effectively walks back central claims made in the original April study, Welbanks said. 'The new paper tacitly concedes that the DMS/DMDS detection was not robust, yet still relies on the same flawed statistical framework and a selective reading of its own results,' Welbanks said in an email. 'While the tone is more cautious (sometimes), the methodology continues to obscure the true level of uncertainty. The statistical significance claimed in earlier work was the product of arbitrary modeling decisions that are not acknowledged.' Luque said the Cambridge team's new paper is a step in the right direction because it explores other possible chemical biosignatures. 'But I think it fell short in the scope,' Luque said. 'I think it restricted itself too much into being a rebuttal to the (Welbanks) paper.' Separately, however, the astronomers studying K2-18b agree that pushing forward on researching the exoplanet contributes to the scientific process. 'I think it's just a good, healthy scientific discourse to talk about what is going on with this planet,' Welbanks said. 'Regardless of what any single author group says right now, we don't have a silver bullet. But that is exactly why this is exciting, because we know that we're the closest we have ever been (to finding a biosignature), and I think we may get it within our lifetime, but right now, we're not there. That is not a failure. We're testing bold ideas.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that's no accident – a public health historian explains how the system was shaped to serve profit and politicians
A few years ago, a student in my history of public health course asked why her mother couldn't afford insulin without insurance, despite having a full-time job. I told her what I've come to believe: The U.S. health care system was deliberately built this way. People often hear that health care in America is dysfunctional – too expensive, too complex and too inequitable. But dysfunction implies failure. What if the real problem is that the system is functioning exactly as it was designed to? Understanding this legacy is key to explaining not only why reform has failed repeatedly, but why change remains so difficult. I am a historian of public health with experience researching oral health access and health care disparities in the Deep South. My work focuses on how historical policy choices continue to shape the systems we rely on today. By tracing the roots of today's system and all its problems, it's easier to understand why American health care looks the way it does and what it will take to reform it into a system that provides high-quality, affordable care for all. Only by confronting how profit, politics and prejudice have shaped the current system can Americans imagine and demand something different. My research and that of many others show that today's high costs, deep inequities and fragmented care are predictable features developed from decades of policy choices that prioritized profit over people, entrenched racial and regional hierarchies, and treated health care as a commodity rather than a public good. Over the past century, U.S. health care developed not from a shared vision of universal care, but from compromises that prioritized private markets, protected racial hierarchies and elevated individual responsibility over collective well-being. Employer-based insurance emerged in the 1940s, not from a commitment to worker health but from a tax policy workaround during wartime wage freezes. The federal government allowed employers to offer health benefits tax-free, incentivizing coverage while sidestepping nationalized care. This decision bound health access to employment status, a structure that is still dominant today. In contrast, many other countries with employer-provided insurance pair it with robust public options, ensuring that access is not tied solely to a job. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid programs greatly expanded public health infrastructure. Unfortunately, they also reinforced and deepened existing inequalities. Medicare, a federally administered program for people over 64, primarily benefited wealthier Americans who had access to stable, formal employment and employer-based insurance during their working years. Medicaid, designed by Congress as a joint federal-state program, is aimed at the poor, including many people with disabilities. The combination of federal and state oversight resulted in 50 different programs with widely variable eligibility, coverage and quality. Southern lawmakers, in particular, fought for this decentralization. Fearing federal oversight of public health spending and civil rights enforcement, they sought to maintain control over who received benefits. Historians have shown that these efforts were primarily designed to restrict access to health care benefits along racial lines during the Jim Crow period of time. Today, that legacy is painfully visible. States that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act are overwhelmingly located in the South and include several with large Black populations. Nearly 1 in 4 uninsured Black adults are uninsured because they fall into the coverage gap – unable to access affordable health insurance – they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to receive subsidies through the Affordable Care Act's marketplace. The system's architecture also discourages care aimed at prevention. Because Medicaid's scope is limited and inconsistent, preventive care screenings, dental cleanings and chronic disease management often fall through the cracks. That leads to costlier, later-stage care that further burdens hospitals and patients alike. Meanwhile, cultural attitudes around concepts like 'rugged individualism' and 'freedom of choice' have long been deployed to resist public solutions. In the postwar decades, while European nations built national health care systems, the U.S. reinforced a market-driven approach. Publicly funded systems were increasingly portrayed by American politicians and industry leaders as threats to individual freedom – often dismissed as 'socialized medicine' or signs of creeping socialism. In 1961, for example, Ronald Reagan recorded a 10-minute LP titled 'Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,' which was distributed by the American Medical Association as part of a national effort to block Medicare. The health care system's administrative complexity ballooned beginning in the 1960s, driven by the rise of state-run Medicaid programs, private insurers and increasingly fragmented billing systems. Patients were expected to navigate opaque billing codes, networks and formularies, all while trying to treat, manage and prevent illness. In my view, and that of other scholars, this isn't accidental but rather a form of profitable confusion built into the system to benefit insurers and intermediaries. Even well-meaning reforms have been built atop this structure. The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, expanded access to health insurance but preserved many of the system's underlying inequities. And by subsidizing private insurers rather than creating a public option, the law reinforced the central role of private companies in the health care system. The public option – a government-run insurance plan intended to compete with private insurers and expand coverage – was ultimately stripped from the Affordable Care Act during negotiations due to political opposition from both Republicans and moderate Democrats. When the U.S. Supreme Court made it optional in 2012 for states to offer expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, it amplified the very inequalities that the ACA sought to reduce. These decisions have consequences. In states like Alabama, an estimated 220,000 adults remain uninsured due to the Medicaid coverage gap – the most recent year for which reliable data is available – highlighting the ongoing impact of the state's refusal to expand Medicaid. In addition, rural hospitals have closed, patients forgo care, and entire counties lack practicing OB/GYNs or dentists. And when people do get care – especially in states where many remain uninsured – they can amass medical debt that can upend their lives. All of this is compounded by chronic disinvestment in public health. Federal funding for emergency preparedness has declined for years, and local health departments are underfunded and understaffed. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed just how brittle the infrastructure is – especially in low-income and rural communities, where overwhelmed clinics, delayed testing, limited hospital capacity, and higher mortality rates exposed the deadly consequences of neglect. Change is hard not because reformers haven't tried before, but because the system serves the very interests it was designed to serve. Insurers profit from obscurity – networks that shift, formularies that confuse, billing codes that few can decipher. Providers profit from a fee-for-service model that rewards quantity over quality, procedure over prevention. Politicians reap campaign contributions and avoid blame through delegation, diffusion and plausible deniability. This is not an accidental web of dysfunction. It is a system that transforms complexity into capital, bureaucracy into barriers. Patients – especially the uninsured and underinsured – are left to make impossible choices: delay treatment or take on debt, ration medication or skip checkups, trust the health care system or go without. Meanwhile, I believe the rhetoric of choice and freedom disguises how constrained most people's options really are. Other countries show us that alternatives are possible. Systems in Germany, France and Canada vary widely in structure, but all prioritize universal access and transparency. Understanding what the U.S. health care system is designed to do – rather than assuming it is failing unintentionally – is a necessary first step toward considering meaningful change. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Zachary W. Schulz, Auburn University Read more: Buyouts can bring relief from medical debt, but they're far from a cure Public health and private equity: What the Walgreens buyout could mean for the future of pharmacy care Migrants often can't access US health care until they are critically ill – here are some of the barriers they face Zachary W. Schulz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
American's Trip to Italy Leads to Shocking Revelation About US: 'So Much Resentment'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. An American traveler who went to Italy on a two-week trip returned with a new perspective—and a lot of resentment—regarding American food. Sharing her experience on Reddit this week, user Temporary-Night-275 said she was able to eat foods in Italy that would have triggered bad reactions back home. Dietary Changes Felt "My mood was better, my awareness was better," the original poster (OP) wrote. "I could eat wheat (I'm extremely gluten intolerant and it messes with my autoimmune disease if I eat it among a multitude of other symptoms) with gluten pills with minor bloating. "I had some of the best food, best health feelings (other than muscle soreness from walking so much) I've ever had in my life." Stock image: Dishes of processed food. Stock image: Dishes of processed food. Photo by carotur / Getty Images Processed food has been shown to "most likely" shorten your life. According to researchers, Americans are "addicted" to it. 'I want to move' The difference, the Redditor believes, lies in how food is produced and regulated. "Sugar and wheat and whatever else is just so much harder on my body here than Italy," she wrote. The OP added that she generally eats healthy, even at home. "I want to move," she wrote, adding, "It sucks here. Government sucks, food sucks, work sucks. "I got the freshest food at a market (quite a bit of it too) for so cheap. Food that would cost me $20-25 was roughly $11. "I hate it here." 'Infinitely better' User Temporary-Night-275 elaborated that the food tasted "fresher" and the texture was "infinitely better," in response to an invitation to comment from Newsweek. "Things just had way better flavor and texture overall and I could tell I was eating better food just by the lack of sugar taste," she wrote, adding, "Even the chips just tasted like quality. "My skin cleared up significantly and I was neglecting my skin routine," she added. The OP said she did have some bloating from the gluten, but no additional symptoms like itching and diarrhea. "So I still felt symptoms, but when you [haven't eaten] gluten for 10 years and have some light bloating after eating pizza, a cornetti and then pasta, I'll take that as a win," she wrote. 'The quality of our food is garbage' Many Reddit users agreed with the OP, amid 1,300 comments within two days online. "My brother's [significant other] is from Singapore," an individual shared, "They regularly mention how sugary and sweet everything is in the U.S. "With health trends like fasting and keto, I almost feel like that speaks for itself. Our food is so bad here people choose to not eat, or completely cut out certain foods they sell here because it will help lose/manage weight. "But the issue isn't even the type of food. It's what's in our food. Other countries have diets that are extremely carb heavy and you'll still see people that are skinny and relatively healthier. "The quality of our food is garbage." A fellow contributor said they spent three weeks in the U.S. and took them 3-4 months to recover: "It's the land of the free: free to sell crap to the customers." Another critic said that their Canadian mother has "endless gut issues" and is gluten intolerant. "Every time she goes to Spain, her stomach stays flat and she feels great. It's terrifying!" Other Factors at Play? Fellow Redditors argued that other factors could be at play. "The U.S. ranks third in the world for food quality and safety. Check out the Global Food Security Index," a user commented. "Most people don't feel good in the U.S. because we're overworked and have barely anything to show for it. Our cities being entirely centered around cars is the biggest issue aside from the lack of cheap and accessible health care here." 'Depressed in America' User Temporary-Night-275 told Newsweek that she was serious about moving and it may be in her 5-year plan. "Between health care, better food, better work-life balance in a lot of other countries, I just want something that makes me feel well," the OP continued. "I'm depressed in America, learning more what happens every day in our government and the s*** food were given [...] "It was magical being able to eat good food again. I definitely am planning my next trip to Italy." Newsweek's "What Should I Do?" offers expert advice to readers. If you have a personal dilemma, let us know via life@ We can ask experts for advice on relationships, family, friends, money and work, and your story could be featured on WSID at Newsweek. To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, click here.
