Is drinking milk good during pregnancy?

No trial shows that milk itself makes for a healthier baby, and the links found are small. Across 14 observational studies with 111,184 pregnant women, those who consumed the most milk and dairy had babies about 51 g heavier at birth (95% CI 24.7 to 77.3). These studies compare women and cannot prove the milk did it. Randomized trials of protein and energy supplements point the same way, with about 41 g more. The same dairy data link more milk with slightly higher odds of a baby large for gestational age. Almost no trial has tested milk itself, and raw milk is the clearest risk.

Unsettled. Whether drinking more milk causes a healthier baby has not been tested properly. A 2022 review of 42 studies on dairy in pregnancy found only 2 interventional ones. What we have is observational data on dairy, and trials of supplements where milk was one possible source of protein and energy.

What the trials found

Protein and energy supplements

A Cochrane review of 11 randomized trials with 5385 women found balanced protein and energy supplements raised mean birth weight by 40.96 g (95% CI 4.66 to 77.26), on moderate-quality evidence. The supplements varied and were not all milk, and the effect was larger in undernourished women. The same review reports fewer babies small for their gestational age (relative risk 0.79) and fewer stillbirths (relative risk 0.60). A 2019 meta-analysis of 62 randomized trials of animal-source protein found that supplementing mothers raised birth weight by 0.13 lb (0.06 kg), and its abstract gives no interval.

More protein is not better

In the same Cochrane review, one trial of high-protein supplements in 505 women raised the risk of a baby small for gestational age by 58 percent (relative risk 1.58, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.41). That was a concentrated protein supplement. It is not evidence against a glass of milk, and it is a reason not to treat protein in pregnancy as more is better.

What dairy intake is linked to

In the 2020 meta-analysis, the highest dairy intake went with lower odds of a baby small for gestational age (odds ratio 0.69) and of low birth weight (0.63), and with 11 percent higher odds of a baby large for gestational age (1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21). Babies were also 0.13 in (0.33 cm) longer across 5 studies. Odds are odds, and leftover differences between the women may explain part of it. The full text was not available to us.

A 2022 dose-response analysis of 9 studies predicted the gain in birth weight peaks at 63.38 g at 5 servings of dairy a day (95% CI 0.08 to 126.67). Half of it, 31.69 g, came at about 1 serving a day. The pooled curve did not reach significance (P = 0.0847) and became significant only after studies that did not report serving size were dropped. On these numbers most of the association appears by the first serving, which says nothing about whether the milk caused it.

Cutting out milk does not prevent allergy

Myth. There is no evidence that avoiding cow milk in pregnancy protects the baby from eczema. A Cochrane review of 5 trials with 952 high-risk women found that avoiding cow milk, egg and other allergens did not lower eczema in the first 18 months. The restricted diet slightly lowered the mothers' weight gain, with trends toward more preterm births and lower birth weight that did not reach significance. That review is from 2012 and did not report longer-term allergy.

Where there is no answer

A 2019 systematic review of 17 studies in healthy pregnant and breastfeeding women found too few studies to draw any conclusion on preterm birth, miscarriage or breastfeeding. We found no meta-analysis on dairy and gestational diabetes.

Who should be careful

Not for everyone. Raw milk is the real risk in pregnancy. The American Academy of Pediatrics warns that unpasteurised milk can carry Listeria, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Brucella and E. coli, which can cause life-threatening infection in pregnant women and miscarriage. The US CDC lists pregnant women among the groups at higher risk of serious illness from germs in raw milk. Neither statement gives a rate.

An umbrella review of 9 systematic reviews on listeriosis in pregnancy found prevention rests on dietary rules such as avoiding unpasteurised dairy and reheating leftovers until steaming. In those reviews, 66 percent of infections happened in the third trimester against 3 percent in the first, so the care matters most late in pregnancy.

Pasteurized products are not entirely free of risk. A review of laboratory-confirmed dairy outbreaks in Canada and the US from 2007 to 2020 counted 12 outbreaks from pasteurized products, with 174 cases, 17 deaths and 7 fetal losses, and Listeria behind 10 of them. Unpasteurised products caused 449 cases and 5 deaths. The abstract does not say which pasteurized products were involved.

The high-protein supplement trial above is the other caution. If you are considering protein drinks or powders in pregnancy, that is a question for your midwife or doctor.

What expert bodies say

The American Academy of Pediatrics, in a 2014 policy statement, says pasteurized milk gives the same health benefits as raw milk without the added risk of bacterial infection. The CDC says pasteurized milk offers the same nutritional benefits without the risks of raw milk. We did not card a current pregnancy-specific recommendation on how much dairy to have, and the ACOG and NHS pages were not read in this pass.

More on the drink itself is on the milk page. Calcium tablets in pregnancy are a separate question, covered in calcium and pregnancy.

How we searched

What would change this answer

• A randomized trial of milk against a drink with the same calories and no dairy, in well-nourished pregnant women, measuring birth weight and babies too small or too large. None was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 October 2026.
• A meta-analysis of dairy and gestational diabetes, which we did not find.
• Baseline rates for small and large babies alongside the ratios above, so the change could be stated per 1000 births.
• A current pregnancy-specific dairy recommendation from a national body, read in full.

Sources

1. ev-mlkp-01 · Meta-analysis or systematic review · Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs · n = 5385 women, 11 trials
   the mean birthweight was significantly increased (random-effects MD +40.96 g, 95% CI 4.66 to 77.26, Tau² = 1744, I² = 44%, 11 trials, 5385 women, moderate-quality evidence)
   
   Who: pregnant women given balanced energy and protein supplementation in RCTs
   Effect: birthweight MD +40.96 g (95% CI 4.66 to 77.26), I2 = 44%; SGA RR 0.79 (0.69 to 0.90); stillbirth RR 0.60 (0.39 to 0.94)
   Certainty: Supplements vary (not only milk); the effect on weight is larger in undernourished women; milk here is only one of the possible carriers of protein and energy.
   Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2015 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
2. ev-mlkp-02 · Meta-analysis or systematic review · Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs · n = 505
   High-protein supplementation (one trial, 505 women), was associated with a significantly increased risk of small-for-gestational age babies (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.41, moderate-quality evidence).
   
   Who: pregnant women given high-protein supplementation
   Effect: SGA RR 1.58 (95% CI 1.03 to 2.41), moderate-quality evidence
   Certainty: A single RCT; concerns concentrated protein supplements, not a glass of milk; an argument against "the more protein the better".
   Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2015 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
3. ev-mlkp-03 · Meta-analysis or systematic review · systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials · n = 62 trials, over 30,000 participants
   Maternal supplementation increased birth weight by 0.06 kg, and both formula and food-based supplementation in term infants/young children increased weight by ≤0.14 kg.
   
   Who: RCTs of animal protein supplementation in mothers, preterm and term infants, over 30,000 participants on 5 continents
   Effect: maternal supplementation: birth weight +0.13 lb (0.06 kg)
   Certainty: Animal protein supplements (milk among them); the CI for the maternal part is not given in the abstract.
   Am J Clin Nutr, 2019 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
4. ev-mlkp-04 · Meta-analysis or systematic review · Cochrane systematic review of randomized and quasi-randomized trials · n = 952, 5 trials
   The evidence from five trials, involving 952 participants, does not suggest a protective effect of maternal dietary antigen avoidance during pregnancy on the incidence of atopic eczema during the first 18 months of life.
   
   Who: high-risk pregnant women prescribed maternal dietary antigen avoidance (cow milk, egg and others)
   Effect: no protective effect on atopic eczema up to 18 months
   Certainty: Review from 2012; long-term allergic outcomes not reported.
   Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2012 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
5. ev-mlkp-05 · Meta-analysis or systematic review · Cochrane systematic review of randomized and quasi-randomized trials · n = 952, 5 trials
   The restricted diet during pregnancy was associated with a slightly but statistically significantly lower mean gestational weight gain, a non-significantly higher risk of preterm birth, and a non-significant reduction in mean birthweight.
   
   Who: pregnant women on an antigen avoidance diet in RCTs
   Effect: slightly but significantly lower gestational weight gain; non-significant higher preterm risk and lower birthweight
   Certainty: Effect sizes not given in the abstract; the authors' conclusion: exclusion may harm maternal or fetal nutrition.
   Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2012 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
6. ev-mlkp-06 · Observational data · systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies · n = 111,184
   The meta-analysis of ten studies revealed a positive association between consuming a higher amount of M&RPs and birth weight (MD =51.0 g, 95 % CI 24.7-77.3)
   
   Who: pregnant women in studies of milk and related products and perinatal outcomes, Western and vegetarian Indian cohorts
   Effect: birth weight MD +51.0 g (95% CI 24.7 to 77.3), 10 studies; birth length MD +0.13 in (0.01 to 0.25; metric: 0.33 cm, 0.03 to 0.64), 5 studies
   Certainty: Mostly observational studies; no full text in PMC (no_pmc).
   Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2020, The effect of consuming milk and related products during human pregnancy over birth weight and perinatal outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
7. ev-mlkp-07 · Observational data · systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies · n = 111,184
   The consumption of a higher amount of M&RPs was associated with a reduced risk of small-for-gestational age (SGA) (OR = 0.69, 95 % CI: 0.56-0.84) and low birth weight infants (OR = 0.63, 95 % CI: 0.48-0.84); in addition to a higher risk of large-for-gestational age (LGA) infants (OR = 1.11, 95 % CI: 1.02-1.21).
   
   Who: pregnant women in observational studies of milk and related products
   Effect: SGA OR 0.69 (0.56-0.84); LBW OR 0.63 (0.48-0.84); LGA OR 1.11 (1.02-1.21)
   Certainty: OR is odds, not risk; observational data, residual confounding possible.
   Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2020, The effect of consuming milk and related products during human pregnancy over birth weight and perinatal outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
8. ev-mlkp-08 · Observational data · systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of mostly observational studies · n = 9 studies for birth weight (42 in review)
   The pooled curve predicted a maximum mean change of 63.38 g (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.08, 126.67) at 5.00 servings per day.
   
   Who: pregnant women in cohort, cross-sectional, case-control and 2 interventional studies of dairy intake
   Effect: maximum mean change +63.38 g (95% CI 0.08 to 126.67) at 5.00 servings/day; 50% of effect at 1.02 servings/day (+31.69 g); overall curve P = 0.0847
   Certainty: The overall curve is not significant (P = 0.0847), significant only without studies lacking portion size.
   Front Nutr, 2022, Maternal Consumption of Milk or Dairy Products During Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the fulltext
9. ev-mlkp-09 · Observational data · systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies · n = 4 studies
   The risk of LGA was predicted to be maximum at 7.20 servings/day of dairy consumption, with the RR and 95% CI of 1.30 (1.15, 1.46).
   
   Who: pregnant women in 4 studies (6 data sets) of dairy intake and LGA
   Effect: LGA RR 1.30 (1.15 to 1.46) at 7.20 servings/day; significant publication bias
   Certainty: Significant publication bias (P-linear = 0.0007); 4 studies.
   Front Nutr, 2022, Maternal Consumption of Milk or Dairy Products During Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the fulltext
10. ev-mlkp-10 · Observational data · systematic review of observational and intervention studies · n = 17 studies
    The lack of studies prevents any conclusions being drawn related to preterm deliveries, spontaneous abortion, and lactation.
    
    Who: healthy pregnant and lactating women in 17 studies (6 prospective cohorts, 3 intervention, 3 retrospective, 3 cross-sectional, 2 case-control)
    Effect: trend to higher birth weight and length; no conclusions for preterm delivery, spontaneous abortion, lactation
    Certainty: No meta-analysis.
    Adv Nutr, 2019 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
11. ev-mlkp-11 · Position of an expert body · policy statement
    These infections can occur in both healthy and immunocompromised individuals, including older adults, infants, young children, and pregnant women and their unborn fetuses, in whom life-threatening infections and fetal miscarriage can occur.
    
    Who: pregnant women, infants and children in the United States
    Effect: life-threatening infections and fetal miscarriage from raw milk pathogens
    Certainty: Position without its own quantitative analysis (2014).
    Pediatrics, 2014 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
12. ev-mlkp-12 · Position of an expert body · policy statement
    Substantial data suggest that pasteurized milk confers equivalent health benefits compared with raw milk, without the additional risk of bacterial infections.
    
    Who: consumers of milk in the United States
    Effect: pasteurized milk equivalent health benefits without bacterial infection risk
    Certainty: Authority position.
    Pediatrics, 2014 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
13. ev-mlkp-13 · Observational data · systematic review of outbreak reports · n = 32 outbreaks
    Twelve outbreaks involving pasteurized products resulted in 174 confirmed cases of illness, 134 hospitalizations, 17 deaths, and seven fetal losses.
    
    Who: laboratory-confirmed dairy-associated outbreaks in Canada and the USA, 2007 to October 2020
    Effect: pasteurized: 174 cases, 134 hospitalizations, 17 deaths, 7 fetal losses; Listeria in 10 of 12 pasteurized outbreaks; unpasteurized: 449 cases, 5 deaths
    Certainty: Which pasteurized products is not visible from the abstract; Listeria: in 10 of 12 outbreaks from pasteurized products.
    Can J Public Health, 2022 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
14. ev-mlkp-14 · Observational data · umbrella review of systematic reviews · n = 9 systematic reviews, 330 studies
    Prevention in pregnant women was based on adherence to strict dietary recommendations, such as reheating leftovers until steamed and avoiding unpasteurised dairy products.
    
    Who: systematic reviews on listeriosis in pregnancy and newborns, indexed before December 2020
    Effect: prevention via avoiding unpasteurised dairy and reheating leftovers; 66% of infections in the third trimester vs 3% in the first
    Certainty: Reviews of mostly observational data and cases.
    BJOG, 2022 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
15. ev-mlkp-15 · Position of an expert body · agency web page
    Some groups, such as children under 5, adults over 65, pregnant women, and people with weakened immune systems, are at a higher risk of serious illness from these germs.
    
    Who: pregnant women, children under 5, adults over 65, immunocompromised people
    Effect: higher risk of serious illness from raw milk germs (Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, Listeria, Brucella, Salmonella)
    Certainty: No quantitative estimate.
    US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Raw Milk (page last reviewed 31 January 2025) · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the section
16. ev-mlkp-16 · Position of an expert body · agency web page
    Pasteurized milk offers the same nutritional benefits without the risks of raw milk consumption.
    
    Who: general population
    Effect: same nutritional benefits, no raw milk risk
    Certainty: An answer to the myth about "living" raw milk.
    US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Raw Milk (page last reviewed 31 January 2025) · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the section