| Audience | Patients, parents, pediatric clinicians, obstetric clinicians, lactation specialists |
| Primary Topic | Breastfeeding counseling after prenatal cannabis exposure |
| Source | Read the full article |
Breastfeeding After Prenatal Cannabis Exposure: What This Cohort Can, and Cannot, Tell Us
A 1,520-infant retrospective cohort found no statistically significant adjusted difference in coded developmental delay between breastfed and non-breastfed infants whose mothers tested positive for cannabis at delivery. The result is clinically useful, but it should not be misread as proof that cannabis use during lactation is safe.
| Study Type | Retrospective cohort study |
| Population | 1,520 infants born from 2013 to 2019 whose mothers tested positive for cannabis at delivery |
| Exposure or Intervention | Breastfeeding status among infants with prenatal cannabis exposure |
| Comparator | Breastfed versus not breastfed |
| Primary Outcomes | Developmental delay identified through ICD-9/10 codes for delayed milestones or speech disorders |
| Sample Size or Scope | 818 not breastfed, 702 breastfed |
| Journal | Breastfeeding Medicine |
| Year | First published online December 23, 2025 |
| DOI | 10.1177/15568253251409805 |
| Funding or Conflicts | Verify from full article before final publication if not visible in the abstract view. |
The investigators used a hospital-based perinatal repository and included infants whose mothers had a positive cannabis urine test at delivery. Breastfeeding status came from birth certificate data. Developmental delay was identified later through billing codes for delayed milestones or speech disorders. The statistical model adjusted for maternal tobacco use, prematurity, and birth year.
That design makes the paper practical and clinically recognizable, but it also means this is not a direct measure of cannabinoid exposure through milk, nor a prospective developmental assessment with standardized testing.
In the unadjusted analysis, infants who were not breastfed had higher odds of developmental delay coding. Once the model adjusted for key covariates, that association was no longer statistically significant. The authors concluded that developmental outcomes did not differ by breastfeeding status among infants with prenatal cannabis exposure.
The most responsible reading is narrow: this is a signal against overly blunt feeding advice in already-exposed dyads, not evidence that cannabis exposure during lactation is safe or clinically advisable.
Moderate for generating counseling nuance, weak for proving safety. The cohort is larger than many perinatal cannabis datasets and uses a concrete exposure screen at delivery, which is helpful. But it remains retrospective, non-randomized, and outcome ascertainment relied on diagnostic coding rather than formal neurodevelopmental testing.
Exposure precision is limited. A positive maternal test at delivery does not quantify dose, frequency, route, potency, or continued postpartum use.
The developmental outcome is blunt. ICD codes can miss subtler neurodevelopmental effects and are not interchangeable with standardized developmental assessment.
Residual confounding remains possible. Important social and clinical differences between breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding families can persist even after adjustment.
Perinatal cannabis counseling is unusually vulnerable to false certainty. Some public narratives overstate harm from any single exposure detail. Others overread observational null findings as reassurance. Neither move is clinically responsible.
The more defensible position is this: avoid cannabis use during pregnancy and lactation when possible, but when clinicians are counseling an already-exposed dyad about infant feeding, breastfeeding decisions should be individualized rather than driven by theoretical alarm alone.
This is a useful cohort, not a definitive answer. Its main practical message is that breastfeeding status was not associated with a statistically significant adjusted difference in coded developmental delay among infants already exposed prenatally. That should make clinical counseling more nuanced while leaving the broader precautionary stance intact.
Join the Conversation
Have a question about how this applies to your situation? Ask Dr. Caplan →
Want to discuss this topic with other patients and caregivers? Join the forum discussion →
Have thoughts on this? Share it:
Source: Nidey N, McAllister JM, Terplan M, Kair LR. Breastfeeding and Developmental Outcomes in Infants with Prenatal Cannabis Exposure: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Breastfeeding Medicine. First published online December 23, 2025. DOI: 10.1177/15568253251409805.