Cigarette smoking has undoubted harmful effects on health, but may protect against venous thromboembolism, inflammatory disease of the bowel and even pre-eclampsia. This last possibility is examined by Christine Martin and her colleagues (pages 745–749), who investigated the association of smoking and pre-eclampsia in 1575 twin pregnancies, using the information held by the Aberdeen Maternity and Neonatal Databank. The authors analysed the results of their study by tests of significance, but from the information in the paper it is possible to estimate the magnitude of the effect of smoking on pre-eclampsia. In multiparae the relative risk (95% confidence interval) of pre-eclampsia in smokers was 0.64 (0.42,0.98), a relationship which was not found in primiparae. Furthermore there was a linear trend in the number of cigarettes smoked and the risk of pre-eclampsia in multiparae. Does this dose-response effect in multiparae imply that smoking protects against pre-eclampsia? Not necessarily, say Christine Martin and colleagues, for the study also shows that women who smoked were more likely to sustain a miscarriage (relative risk 1.54; 95% confidence interval 1.11, 2.15), and to deliver prematurely (relative risk 1.12; 95% confidence interval 0.99, 1.26). Since pre-eclampsia is a disorder mainly of the latter part of the third trimester it is possible that miscarriage or preterm delivery associated with smoking may result in fewer women being at risk of pre-eclampsia later in pregnancy. The results of this investigation should be confirmed elsewhere in the world, if possible controlling for the confounding factors of parity, miscarriage and preterm delivery. Secular trends of increasing birthweight are often blamed, at least in part, for the progressive increase in the rate of caesarean section, but Gordon Smith (pages 740–744) suggests that the relationship is not straightforward. The author carried out a retrospective study of over one hundred thousand singleton pregnancies at term where labour was spontaneous, the information being obtained from the Scottish Maternity Record. There were positive trends in the rates of emergency caesarean section, birthweight and the proportion of infants with birthweights greater than 4000 grams, and a negative trend in the proportion of infants with birthweights less than 2500 grams. The risk of caesarean section with increasing birthweight showed a U shape, such that the risk was almost the same below 2500 grams as it was above 4000 grams. The trend towards increasing birthweight therefore will decrease the proportion of caesarean sections due to low birth weight but will increase the proportion of caesarean sections due to macrosomia. From Table 1, however, there were six times as many infants born with macrosomia as low birth weight, and so part of the increase in the number of caesarean sections must be due to macrosomia, on account of true cephalo-pelvic disproportion. However, the secular trend in the risk of caesarean section, adjusted for birth-weight, showed a steady increase, suggesting that other factors are also responsible for the increase in the rate of caesarean section, and not birthweight alone. Birthweight is also the theme of the study of J. Zeitlin and colleagues (pages 750–758), who tested the hypothesis that preterm infants are more likely to have growth restriction (or more correctly, be small for gestational age) than term infants. The authors used information from the European Program of Occupational Risks and Pregnancy Outcome, a case control study to identify the determinants of preterm birth. Standards of birthweight were derived from estimations of fetal weight by ultrasound, adjusted for maternal parity, weight, height, smoking and sex of the infant. After adjusting for confounding variables the risk of small for gestational age was six times as great where preterm delivery was induced, and was nearly twice as great where preterm delivery occurred spontaneously, compared with control infants delivered at term. This latter finding is especially interesting, for it suggests hypotheses which may explain idiopathic preterm delivery—subtle congenital defects, infection or intrauterine growth restriction.