ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2026
Breastfeeding Science Denialism: Unpacking a Hidden Harm.
Article in Maternal & child nutrition, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the digital age, misinformation about infant feeding threatens decades of public health efforts to revive breastfeeding. Increasingly sophisticated marketing exploits cultural knowledge gaps, serving commercial interests and exacerbating food insecurity from climate change and migration. Public health literature acknowledges that suboptimal breastfeeding rates are due to systemic failures, not personal ones. However, our social responsibility to parents includes promoting public literacy in infant feeding and breastfeeding and lactation science. Recognizing breastfeeding misinformation as science denialism unlocks field-tested communication tools from domains long-targeted by denialism, such as climate change and vaccines. We describe five breastfeeding denialism strategies that echo tactics historically used to manufacture doubt about scientific consensus: minimization of breastfeeding's importance, misrepresenting research, misrepresenting clinical standards, appeals to individualist values, and leveraging authority through influencers and industry credentials. These practices contradict evidence that lack of breastfeeding access increases disease risk, costing over $500 billion annually. We call for research and suggest actions for clinicians, public health professionals, policymakers, and organizations to protect parents from misinformation. Supporting informed decision-making requires comprehensive medical curricula, organizational statements addressing denialism, policies enacting parental leave and education, and cultural normalization of breastfeeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.