Food taboos during pregnancy: meta-analysis on cross cultural differences suggests specific, diet-related pressures on childbirth among agriculturalists.
Agriculture
Anthropology
Evolution of human diet
Evolution of human subsistence patterns
Food taboos
Hunter-gatherers
Obstetric dilemma
Obstructed labor
Phenotypic plasticity
Pregnancy
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
23
12
2021
accepted:
03
06
2022
entrez:
18
7
2022
pubmed:
19
7
2022
medline:
19
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pregnancy is the most delicate stage of human life history as well as a common target of food taboos across cultures. Despite puzzling evidence that many pregnant women across the world reduce their intake of nutritious foods to accomplish cultural norms, no study has provided statistical analysis of cross-cultural variation in food taboos during pregnancy. Moreover, antenatal practices among forager and agriculturalists have never been compared, despite subsistence mode being known to affect staple foods and lifestyle directly. This gap hinders to us from understanding the overall threats attributed to pregnancy, and their perceived nutritional causes around the world. The present study constitutes the first cross-cultural meta-analysis on food taboos during pregnancy. We examined thirty-two articles on dietary antenatal restrictions among agricultural and non-agricultural societies, in order to: (i) identify cross-culturally targeted animal, plant and miscellaneous foods; (ii) define major clusters of taboo focus; (iii) test the hypothesis that food types and clusters of focus distribute differently between agricultural and non-agricultural taboos; and (iv) test the hypothesis that food types distribute differently across the clusters of taboo focus. All data were analysed in SPSS and RStudio using chi-squared tests and Fisher's exact tests. We detected a gradient in taboo focus that ranged from no direct physiological interest to the fear of varied physiological complications to a very specific concern over increased birth weight and difficult delivery. Non-agricultural taboos were more likely to target non-domesticated animal foods and to be justified by concerns not directly linked to the physiological sphere, whereas agricultural taboos tended to targed more cultivated and processed products and showed a stronger association with concerns over increased birth weight. Despite some methodological discrepancies in the existing literature on food taboos during pregnancy, our results illustrate that such cultural traits are useful for detecting perception of biological pressures on reproduction across cultures. Indeed, the widespread concern over birth weight and carbohydrate rich foods overlaps with clinical evidence that obstructed labor is a major threat to maternal life in Africa, Asia and Eurasia. Furthermore, asymmetry in the frequency of such concern across subsistence modes aligns with the evolutionary perspective that agriculture may have exacerbated delivery complications. This study highlights the need for the improved understanding of dietary behaviors during pregnancy across the world, addressing the role of obstructed labor as a key point of convergence between clinical, evolutionary and cultural issues in human behavior.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35846875
doi: 10.7717/peerj.13633
pii: 13633
pmc: PMC9281602
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
e13633Informations de copyright
©2022 Maggiulli et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Références
World J Diabetes. 2015 Jul 25;6(8):1024-32
pubmed: 26240699
Soc Sci Med. 1989;28(9):985-96
pubmed: 2711231
Int J Nurs Stud. 2010 Jan;47(1):60-6
pubmed: 19615683
Soc Sci Med. 2000 Sep;51(5):679-90
pubmed: 10975228
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2002 Apr;16(2):108-14
pubmed: 12060311
Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Feb;101(2):397-401
pubmed: 12576266
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2007;16(3):537-45
pubmed: 17704036
Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Mar;71(3):682-92
pubmed: 10702160
Am J Clin Nutr. 1972 Aug;25(8):789-99
pubmed: 5046724
Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Jan;17(1):60-8
pubmed: 23776854
Rev Saude Publica. 1989 Dec;23(6):455-64
pubmed: 2641837
Hum Organ. 1983 Fall;42(3):235-46
pubmed: 10263280
Q Rev Biol. 2000 Jun;75(2):113-48
pubmed: 10858967
Nutrients. 2013 Jul 31;5(8):2933-54
pubmed: 23912325
Ecol Food Nutr. 2021 Nov-Dec;60(6):785-809
pubmed: 33890529
Midwifery. 2005 Jun;21(2):139-53
pubmed: 15878429
Proc Nutr Soc. 2002 Feb;61(1):45-50
pubmed: 12008645
J Health Popul Nutr. 2019 Aug 7;38(1):17
pubmed: 31387643
Am J Hum Biol. 2021 Nov;33(6):e23566
pubmed: 33452758
Diabetes Care. 2008 Dec;31(12):2281-3
pubmed: 18835944
Midwifery. 2009 Apr;25(2):104-13
pubmed: 17408821
Evol Hum Behav. 2017 Nov;38(6):714-728
pubmed: 29333059
Health Care Women Int. 2008 Sep;29(8):826-40
pubmed: 18726794
Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 Mar;99(3):517-23
pubmed: 24351875
Health Care Women Int. 2020 Feb;41(2):159-168
pubmed: 30998436
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2014 Apr;43(4):275-80
pubmed: 24440128
Evol Med Public Health. 2018 Feb 05;2017(1):191-200
pubmed: 29423225
Health Care Women Int. 2013;34(5):395-415
pubmed: 23550950
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 May;283(5):929-33
pubmed: 21193917
Curr Anthropol. 2002 Feb;43(1):19-61
pubmed: 14992226
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2012;149 Suppl 55:40-71
pubmed: 23138755
Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Jul;72(1 Suppl):291S-297S
pubmed: 10871595
Soc Sci Med. 1999 Jan;48(2):149-62
pubmed: 10048774
Stud Fam Plann. 1986 Jan-Feb;17(1):13-21
pubmed: 3485841
Indian J Matern Child Health. 1991;2(1):3-9
pubmed: 12288706
Public Health Nutr. 2022 Mar;25(3):760-769
pubmed: 33866982
Lancet. 2010 May 8;375(9726):1609-23
pubmed: 20382417
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 May;285(5):1225-9
pubmed: 22083313
Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Dec;90(6):869-73
pubmed: 9397092
Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2017 Apr;300(4):716-731
pubmed: 28297186
Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Dec 22;277(1701):3715-24
pubmed: 20667878
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Feb;81(2):341-54
pubmed: 15699220
Elife. 2019 Jun 04;8:
pubmed: 31159924
Front Public Health. 2018 Oct 17;6:292
pubmed: 30386761
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2010 Nov;1(4):189-94
pubmed: 21122620
Med Anthropol. 2015;34(4):291-6
pubmed: 25830933
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1997 Sep-Oct;26(5):533-9
pubmed: 9313183
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Sep 18;109(38):15212-6
pubmed: 22932870
J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2015 Jul 17;11:59
pubmed: 26182983
J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2009 Jun 29;5:18
pubmed: 19563636
Trends Genet. 2013 Oct;29(10):585-92
pubmed: 23566676
Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2002 Jul;96(5):477-87
pubmed: 12194708
Health Care Women Int. 1993 Mar-Apr;14(2):145-53
pubmed: 8509318
Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Oct;84(4):807-12
pubmed: 17023707
Arch Public Health. 2019 Aug 06;77:36
pubmed: 31402976
Neonatal Netw. 2001 Sep;20(6):17-23
pubmed: 12144115
Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Jul;72(1 Suppl):212S-240S
pubmed: 10871588
Trop Med Int Health. 1996 Jun;1(3):399-405
pubmed: 8673846
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Sep;157(3):703-8
pubmed: 3307427
Hum Ecol. 1989 Sep;17(3):321-45
pubmed: 12283361
J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016 Jan 27;12:7
pubmed: 26818243
Proc Nutr Soc. 1980 Feb;39(1):13-5
pubmed: 7367433
Public Health Nutr. 2017 Aug;20(11):1928-1940
pubmed: 28629489