Frisbie, Forbes, and Pullum (1996) show that it is meaningful to account for low birth weight, preterm delivery, and intrauterine growth-retardation when analyzing differences in compromised birth outcomes and infant mortality among racial and ethnic groups. I compare their findings for the 1987 U.S. birth cohort with findings for the 1988 U.S. birth cohort, using linked birth and infant death vital statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics. I focus on their calculation of fetal growth curves, which are highly at odds with the curves commonly used in the obstetric and pediatric literature. I compare birth outcome distributions and infant death probabilities using Frisbie et al.'s method and other standards. I conclude that Frisbie et al.'s method is not suited for the study of intrauterine growth-retardation at the population level because of the major flaws in gestational age measurement that exist in the type of data they use. An appropriate alternative is to apply a standard of normal intrauterine growth derived from antenatal estimation of fetal weight-for-gestational-age to the vital statistics data.