New Study: Breastfeeding Might Be Hazardous To Your Baby's Health!

Researchers now say that feeding your baby only breast milk for the first six months could lead to iron deficiency and allergies!

The World Health Organization says that you should exclusively feed your baby breast milk for the first six months of life, but now a new study by researchers at University College London says doing so might actually be BAD for your baby! So what does that mean for all the new moms, like Maggie Gyllenhaal and Kourtney Kardashian, who thought they were doing the very best thing for their babies by breastfeeding? Wow, the La Leche Nazis are going to go CRAZY over this!

According to the new report, if your child is predisposed to allergies (like they run in your family) then waiting for six months to give your baby solid foods could INCREASE their risk to develop a food allergy. The other problem, states the report, is that a lot of breast milk is lacking in iron, which means you’ll be passing an iron-deficient diet along to your baby. “Iron is a big concern because it affects brain development,” says Dr. David Greene, Professor of Pediatrics at Stanford University, in an interview about the new study with Shine.

This topic is SO controversial already and with so many people weighing in with such strong opinions (Gwen Stefani once said that nursing “gives you superhuman powers!”) the result is that many women are just plain confused by all this conflicting information. So do YOU believe that breastfeeding might be bad for your baby?

View Comment

There is so much wrong about this article. First of all, just because you breastfeed, doesn’t mean you can’t give your baby additional iron. Also, just because you breastfeed, doesn’t mean you can’t supplement with additional food at 4-6 months. I have not read the study yet, but 1 study doesn’t prove anything. Frankly, if your family is prone to allergies, you are going to be genetically more prone to get allergies. But this article is suggesting it is BAD to breastfeed, which is just completely ridiculous, and has no basis in fact.

Share this comment at

Wow, what a poorly-written article. The headline is pure trash; there is NO proof that breastfeeding is harmful to baby, but tons of proof that formula-feeding can be. Ridiculous.

The study does NOT say breastfeeding is bad, only that breastfeeding without any supplemental nutrition for 6 months is associated with iron deficiency and allergies.

Ah, this is completely false. Breastmilk was made for babies if it did not contain everything they needed the human race would have died out a long time ago. Unless stone aged people chewed up their food and spit it into their infants mouths like birds (since they didn’t have blenders). Also, different types of vitamins are absorbed into the body then others. So even though breastmilk may have less iron then formula, the iron is breastmilk is probably better absorbed by the body. Plus breastmilk has good bacteria like the ones in yogurt that help vitamins get broken down and absorbed. Also breastfed babies are statistically less likely to develop allergies.

This is insane- if Mom takes a good vitamin and has a good diet, baby will not have any deficiencies. Only breastmilk will prevent your baby from having allergies and illnesses later on. Formula can’t change to meet your baby’s needs the way mother’s milk can. Moms need to do some research and take a free class at their hospital on BF. It is the best thing for baby, and the longer the better. Introducing solids is fine but don’t wean to formula!

this is bullsh*t breast milk lacks iron because hey guess what, too much iron is bad for baby, far worse then having a lack of iron, I wonder if iron is so crucial for brain development, why is it that BF babies have higher IQ’s then formula fed babies? as for the increase in allergies, there are studies done that prove that delaying solids helps prevent allergies and that is regardless of weather the baby is breastfed or formula fed, I see nothing in this article that warrants such a title. I agree with a PP who stated if anything should have been gained from this article it is that solids should maybe be introduced earlier, but as I already stated, I dont believe that.

for the record. My daughter was exclusively BF for the first year, no solids, only breast milk, and continued to nurse up until a month ago when she turned three, she has no allergies and is much smarter then other kids her age. My son is 10months old and is showing no signs of allergies and again, he’s much smarter then other kids.

This is the first article I’ve read on this site, and I’m sure it will be the last since you can’t seem to do any real research or even put a relevant title to your post.

You aren’t even suppose to introduce solids to early on anyway!

Jesus could you guys get any more alarmist? Writing articles with headlines like this is seriously irresponsible. The “potential risk” of needing more iron does not outweigh the benefits of breastfeeding. And it certainly doesn’t make it bad. You are spreading propaganda and false information that breastfeeding is harmful to babies- how ridiculous! All the study is suggesting is MAYBE it’s worth introducing solids earlier. Have some freaking respect for yourselves and stop posting sensationalistic headlines and stories.

Wow, Sarah. It’s “Hollybaby” – not the friggin NY Times. Why would you even come to a site like this if you didn’t expect sensational headlines?

The studies are all over the map and there is no discussion on the methodologies used by the researchers. Did they have a statistically viable sample or did they follow 10 women and their babies? Were they funded by a corporation (e.g., a baby food company)?

You don’t know nor do the drafters of this article, clearly. So I’d suggest if you want to avoid freaking out at “medical” articles on Hollybaby because they’re sensationalized, read the New England Journal of Medicine.

Fred, I don’t care about them posting medical articles on here. And I’m quite familiar with the fallacies of reported studies, I’ve worked in research for years. What I was annoyed about was HollyBaby taking a study that does NOT claim that breastfeeding is hazardous to a baby’s health, it’s suggesting that there are benefits to introducing solids earlier than the recommended 6 months, and then posting a gigantic headline proclaiming that breastfeeding is hazardous to your baby’s health. It’s irresponsible to make that leap, especially given how many women I would imagine read this site. I don’t even necessarily agree with the study, I plan to breastfeed exclusively up to the 6 month mark, but for this site to make that jump and suggest that breastfeeding is hazardous to your child’s health is irresponsible and misleading. If they are going to mislead readers (whether intentionally or unintentionally), then maybe they should just stick with celebrity bump pics and leave the medical articles to the NYT, like you said.

So those who disagree with you are Nazi, huh? No wonder you don’t sign your name or have a photo! You didn’t mention that the ones who funded this study make baby food did you? I wonder why?

The confusion is because there is no one answer. Just guidelines. Anyone who says I was(not)breast fed and I’m this, just doesn’t understand that there a few billion people and they are different. What makes one stronger can have the completely opposite to someone else.

Breastfeeding all 4 of my children, some for almost 3 years, I can say that the experience resulted in smarter, healthier children. One is in Who’s Who of American High School Students, all have spectacular jobs/vocations, and are well-adjusted and just plain happy. No alergies. The key to damping-down algeries is to give babies ONLY rice cereal, no other grains until they are older.