Johansen.se

International guidelines recommend people limit how much coffee they drink during pregnancy. Consuming caffeine – a stimulant – while pregnant has been linked to how the baby’s brain develops.

Some studies have shown increased coffee consumption during pregnancy is associated with the child having neurodevelopmental difficulties. These may include traits linked to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as difficulties with language, motor skills, attention, hyperactivity and impulsive behaviour.

But is coffee the cause? Our new research aimed to clear up the sometimes confusing advice about drinking coffee during pregnancy.

We studied tens of thousands of pregnant women over two decades. The results showed – when other factors like genes and income were accounted for – no causal link between drinking coffee during pregnancy and a child’s neurodevelopmental difficulties. That means it’s safe to keep drinking your daily latte according to current recommendations.

What we were trying to find out

Past research has identified a link between drinking coffee during pregnancy and a child’s neurodevelopmental difficulties. But it hasn’t been able to establish caffeine as the direct cause.

Biological changes during pregnancy reduce caffeine metabolism. This means the caffeine molecules and metabolites (the molecules produced while breaking down the caffeine) take longer to be cleared from the body.

Additionally, past studies have shown caffeine and its by-products can cross the placenta. The fetus does not have the necessary enzymes to clear them, and so it was thought that caffeine metabolites may impact the developing baby.

However it can be hard to identify whether coffee directly causes changes to the fetus’s brain development. Pregnant women who drink coffee may differ from those who don’t in a number of other ways. And it could be these variables – not coffee – that affect neurodevelopment.

These variables, known as “confounding factors” might include how much people drink or smoke while pregnant, or a parent’s income and education. For example, we know people who tend to drink coffee also tend to drink more alcohol and smoke more cigarettes than those who don’t drink coffee.

Our study aimed to look at the effect of drinking coffee on neurodevelopmental difficulties, isolated from these confounding factors.

What we did

We know genes play a role in how many cups of coffee a person consumes per day. Our study used genetics to compare the development of children whose mothers did and did not carry genes linked to increased coffee consumption.

The study looked at tens of thousands of families registered in the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study. All pregnant women in Norway between 1999 and 2008 were invited to participate and 58,694 women took part with their child.

Parents reported how much coffee they drank before and during pregnancy. Mothers also completed questionnaires about their child’s neurodevelopmental traits between six months and eight years of age.

The questions covered many traits, including difficulties with attention, communication, behavioural flexibility, regulation of activity and impulses, as well as motor and language skills.

The parents and children also provided genetic samples. This allowed us to control for genetic variants shared between mother and child and isolate the behaviour of coffee drinking.

The study used reports from mothers about their child’s neurodevelopmental traits over more than seven years.
Ann in the uk/Shutterstock

What we found

We were able to look at causality through this method of adjusting for potential confounding factors in the environment (the mother smoking or drinking alcohol, the parents’ education and income).

The results showed no strong causal link between increased maternal coffee consumption and children’s neurodevelopmental difficulties.

The difference in findings between our and previous studies may be explained by our work separating the effect of coffee from the effect of other variables, as well as genetic predisposition to neurodevelopmental conditions.

Our study has limitations. Importantly, we were only able to rule out strong effects of coffee on neurodevelopmental difficulties, and it is possible small effects may exist.

We only investigated offspring neurodevelopmental traits, and coffee consumption during pregnancy could impact the mother or child in other ways.

However we have previously shown coffee consumption during pregnancy did not have strong causal effects on birth weight, gestational duration, risk of miscarriage or stillbirth. But other outcomes – such as mental health or a child’s risk for heart disease and stroke later in life – should be investigated.

Overall, our study supports current clinical guidelines that state low to moderate consumption of coffee during pregnancy is safe for the mother and developing baby.

For most people, that means sticking below 200mg of caffeine per day – usually equivalent to one espresso or two instant coffees – should be safe. If you have concerns, it’s best to speak to your clinician. Läs mer…

New Zealand’s infrastructure woes are a constant political pain point. From ageing water systems to congested roads and assets increasingly threatened by climate change, the country faces mammoth upgrading and future-proofing challenges.

Enter Winston Peters and NZ First with a surprise proposal for a NZ$100 billion “Future Fund” dedicated to infrastructure investment. Sounds promising – but the proposal’s success will hinge on getting the details right and, more importantly, getting the politics out of infrastructure planning.

Unveiled at NZ First’s annual convention last weekend, the idea bears striking similarities to challenges previously highlighted by urban planning and infrastructure experts.

The country currently has an estimated infrastructure deficit of over $100 billion, which aligns eerily with the scale of Peters’ proposed fund.

The Future Fund proposal sounds impressive on paper. Ring-fenced from political meddling and focused on national interests, it’s billed as a silver bullet for infrastructure funding problems.

Peters claims he’s taken a page from the Singapore and Ireland playbooks – potentially breaking New Zealand’s habit of treating big infrastructure projects like they’re part of a three-year plan.

Long-term savings

As always, the devil is in the details – and the Future Fund is light on them. How exactly would this fund be financed? How would projects be selected and prioritised? And, crucially, how would it be insulated from the political interference it claims to avoid?

The potential benefits are significant. Research suggests that a stable, long-term approach to infrastructure investment and better utilisation of existing assets could unlock substantial savings – potentially up to 40% of total project costs.

A well-managed $100 billion fund could provide the certainty and consistency needed to achieve these efficiencies.

The scale of the fund also aligns with the urgent need for a comprehensive infrastructure overhaul. From modernising water systems to expanding road and rail networks, and ensuring resilience against climate change, the required investment is indeed massive.

Politics is the problem

Yet the proposal faces significant hurdles, not the least of which is from NZ First’s own coalition partners.

The National Party’s previous commitments to curb borrowing seem at odds with a fund of this magnitude. Peters argues that debt for wealth creation and infrastructure differs from debt for consumption.

That’s a valid point, but one that may struggle to gain traction in a political environment focused on reducing overall government debt.

The proposal also raises questions about how it would interact with existing initiatives, such as the National Investment Agency set up by Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop. It’s unclear whether these entities would complement each other or create redundancies and inefficiencies.

Perhaps the most critical question is whether this fund, despite its claimed independence, can rise above the political cycle. We have a long and exhausting history of proposing infrastructure for political gain, where one government’s “vital infrastructure” becomes the next’s “wasteful spending”.

A well-managed $100 billion fund could provide the certainty and consistency needed for New Zealand’s long-term infrastructure.
nazar_ab/Getty Images

Time for a 30-year plan

While the Future Fund could be a big move in the right direction, we must also rethink how we plan (and pay) for infrastructure completely.

A good start would be a 30-year plan that all political parties can get behind, like the United Kingdom’s National Infrastructure Assessment. This would give us a real long-term vision rather than promises that change with each election cycle.

We should also look at more innovative ways to fund projects. Value capture, which leverages rising property values near new infrastructure to help finance its development, helped build London’s Crossrail. And Australia is “asset recycling” from old infrastructure into new projects.

These aren’t just theoretical ideas. They could change how we build what New Zealand needs without the risks of entirely relying on taxpayers.

Ending the boom-bust cycle

Efficiency must also be a priority. Time-of-use charges for roads, already implemented in cities such as Stockholm and Singapore and proposed for Auckland, could reduce congestion and wasteful spending on unnecessary road expansions.

Volumetric charging for water, as seen in the Kāpiti Coast, can significantly reduce water waste without massive new investments.

New Zealand could also break free from its boom-bust infrastructure cycle by establishing an agency outside the political realm to manage the cash Winston Peters is proposing.

A truly independent infrastructure body, similar to Infrastructure Australia, could provide the continuity and expertise needed to see projects through political cycles.

Money isn’t the only issue here. Politics is the real roadblock. Right now, every election cycle, priorities change, projects fly out the window, and the bill for desperately needed infrastructure only gets bigger.

The Future Fund seems like a step in the right direction. But without also overhauling how we make decisions about infrastructure, it could end up being just another political football. Läs mer…

The United States isn’t the only country with a big election on November 5. Palau, a tourism-dependent microstate in the north Pacific, will also vote for a new president, Senate and House of Delegates that day.

Why does this election matter? Palau is one of the few remaining countries that has diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

In addition, elections in the Pacific – and the horse-trading to form government that follows – often present a chance for China to steal an ally away from Taiwan in its efforts to further reduce the self-ruling island’s diplomatic space.

For example, there was speculation Tuvalu could flip its allegiance from Taipei to Beijing based on the outcome of January’s election, but the government decided to remain in Taiwan’s camp.

Another Pacific nation, Nauru, did flip from Taiwan to China in January, less than 48 hours after Taiwan’s own presidential election.

I recently visited Palau as part of a research project examining China’s growing extraterritorial reach, and was curious to see if the balance is shifting towards Beijing in the lead-up to this year’s election.

What’s at stake in Palau’s election?

Palau, a nation of 16,000 registered voters, has close ties to the US. It was under US administration after the second world war and recently signed a “Compact of Free Association” with the US. Palau also has a similar presidential system of government, with a president directly elected by the people every four years.

However, there are also some key differences: there are no political parties in Palau, nor is there any replica of the absurd Electoral College voting system.

The archipelago also has extremely polite yard signs (“Please consider[…]”, “Please vote for […]” and “Moving forward together”). Alliances are based more on clan and kinship relations than ideology (although that’s not entirely dissimilar to the US).

This year’s presidential race is between the “two juniors”: the incumbent, Surangel Whipps Junior, and the challenger, Tommy Remengensau Junior. If either man were facing a different opponent, he would win easily. Nearly all of Palau’s political insiders deem this contest too close to call.

Whipps has been in office since 2021. Accompanied by his beloved father, a former president of the Senate and speaker of the House in Palau, he is expected to door-knock each household at least four times.

Palau President Surangel Whipps Junior speaking at the United Nations in September.
Sarah Yenesel/EPA

Remengensau isn’t a political newbie, either. He’s been president for 16 of Palau’s 30 years as an independent state. In the comments section of the YouTube live feed of a recent presidential debate, one person asked, “you’ve had four terms, how many more do you need?”

Whipps copped flak for his tax policy, but the comments and the debate itself reached Canadian levels of politeness. As the debate wound up, the rivals embraced warmly – befitting their closeness (they are actually brothers-in-law) and their lack of discernible ideological differences.

2024 Palau presidential debate.

A ‘pro-Beijing’ candidate in the race?

However, there is one issue that has the potential to drive a wedge between the two candidates: the China–Taiwan rivalry.

In a recent article for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), Remengensau was described as a “pro-Beijing” candidate who might be inclined to switch Palau’s diplomatic relations to Beijing, cheered on by the “China-sympathetic” national newspaper, Tia Belau.

Remengensau’s reaction to the ASPI piece was genuine fury, and aside from a few fly-in lobbyists from the US, no one in the country has taken the characterisation seriously. Yes, he is less pro-US than Whipps, reciting the “friends to all, enemies to none” mantra beloved by Pacific leaders in the debate. But that’s some distance from being “pro-Beijing”.

Other outside commentators have also weighed in with similar viewpoints. Recent pieces by right-wing think tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Federation for the Defence of Democracies, have pushed a similar line that every Pacific nation is just “one election away from a [People’s Republic of China]-proxy assuming power and dismantling democracy”.

What’s really behind concerns of Chinese influence

The basis for both allegations in the ASPI piece is a fascinating investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). The story detailed an influence attempt led by a local businessman from China, Hunter Tian, to set up a media conglomerate in Palau with the owner of the newspaper Tia Belau, a man named Moses Uludong. (I played a small part in the investigation.)

The proposed conglomerate had eyebrow-raising links to China’s secret police and military. But COVID killed the deal, and today, the newspaper runs press releases from Taiwan’s embassy without changing a word.

Palau’s media is also ranked as the most free in the Pacific, and Tia Belau is a central part of this healthy media ecosystem.

Uludong is a pragmatic businessman who’s no simple cheerleader for Beijing, explaining to OCCRP’s journalists last year:

The Chinese, they have a way of doing business. They are really not open.

This doesn’t mean Chinese operations in Palau will stop, though. Representatives of the Chinese government like Tian, who is the president of the Palau Overseas Chinese Federation and has impressive family links to the People’s Liberation Army, will keep trying to influence Palau’s elites and media.

Evidence uncovered by Palau’s media suggests some of their elites are vulnerable to capture. In recent months, the immigration chief stepped down for using his position “for private gain or profit”, while the speaker of the House of Delegates was ordered to pay US$3.5 million (A$5.2 million) for a tax violation, in part due to an irregular lease to a Chinese national.

Chinese triads are also now involved in scam compounds and drug trafficking in Palau, which has done little to burnish China’s image among Palauans.

Playing into China’s hands

So, can we expect a dramatic Palau diplomatic flip after November’s election? Not anytime soon.

But labelling respected leaders and media outlets as “pro-Beijing” with no basis, and fabricating a Manichean struggle in a nation where there’s plenty of goodwill for the US, won’t cause China’s boosters in Palau to lose sleep.

Egging on US agencies to “do something” to counter Chinese influence in the Pacific, such as a poorly thought-out influence operation run by the Pentagon in the Philippines during the pandemic, will just play into Beijing’s hands. In the Pacific, secrets don’t stay secret for long. And if you call someone “pro-China” for long enough, one day you might get your wish. Läs mer…