ReviewPediatric research2026
Breastfeeding against climate change: linking infant nutrition and environmental sustainability - a narrative review.
Review in Pediatric research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClimate change is a growing threat to human health, yet infant feeding is rarely included in sustainability discussions. Breastfeeding (BF) and commercial milk formula (CMF) have very different environmental and health impacts. Since infant nutrition is linked to planetary health, paediatricians can help promote feeding practices that support both child health and environmental goals.
methodsWe conducted a narrative review of scientific literature and international reports to summarize evidence on the environmental impacts of CMF production and consumption, the sustainability advantages of BF, and the barriers that influence feeding choices.
resultsBF is the most sustainable first-food system, requiring no industrial processing, packaging, or transport and producing minimal waste, whereas CMF is resource-intensive. Life cycle assessments show that CMF has higher environmental impacts than BF in areas such as global warming potential, land use, and water eutrophication, mainly due to dairy production. CMF manufacture also contributes to antimicrobial resistance and biodiversity loss. Social and workplace barriers, including limited parental leave, inadequate lactation support, and CMF marketing, reduce BF rates.
conclusionsSupporting BF within climate and health policies can not only improve maternal and child outcomes but also contribute to planetary health. IMPACT QUESTIONS: 1. The article shows that breastfeeding, beyond its clinical benefits, represents a substantially more sustainable first-food system than commercial milk formula and should be regarded as a meaningful climate-mitigation strategy. 2. The review integrates and updates life-cycle evidence on the environmental footprint of commercial milk formula (carbon, water, land, and waste) highlighting the persistent exclusion of breastfeeding from climate-policy frameworks. 3. By reframing breastfeeding as a climate-relevant intervention, the article supports its incorporation into environmental and public health strategies with the potential for significant resource conservation and emission reduction.
Identifiers
42045569What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.