Are prunes good during pregnancy?

For constipation, probably, though nobody has tested prunes in pregnant women. We found no randomized trial and no review of prunes in pregnancy. The closest evidence is a Cochrane review of constipation in pregnancy, where fiber supplements raised stool frequency by 2.24 bowel movements a week against no treatment (95% CI 0.96 to 3.52). That came from one trial of 40 women, and the fiber was biscuits or wheat bran rather than prunes. In adults who were not pregnant, prunes helped constipation about as much as psyllium.

Unsettled. The step from those trials to a pregnant woman eating prunes is an inference. The Cochrane reviewers found only two small trials with 180 women that gave usable data, and judged the evidence too thin to fully assess any treatment for constipation in pregnancy. None of those trials used prunes, and we found none since.

Extra bowel movements a week, against the comparator

The two rows answer different questions. The first is fiber from biscuits or wheat bran in pregnancy, against doing nothing. The second is whole fruit, mostly kiwifruit, against psyllium, which is itself a treatment, in adults who were not pregnant. Prunes alone did not differ from psyllium. Sources: cards ev-prpr-01 and ev-prpr-04 below.

What the trials found

Fiber in pregnancy

In a 1985 trial of 40 constipated women in the third trimester, about 10 g of fiber a day as corn biscuits or wheat bran gave more bowel movements and softer stools within 2 weeks. Women given nothing saw no change. The abstract gives no size for the effect. In a randomized trial of 376 pregnant women at high risk of metabolic syndrome, a daily soluble fiber supplement taken from 11 to 13 weeks until delivery lowered the need for constipation medicine. The abstract does not give that number either. Neither trial used prunes.

Prunes outside pregnancy

In a single-blind crossover trial of 40 constipated adults, 37 of them women and none pregnant, 1.8 oz (50 g) of prunes twice a day for 3 weeks improved complete bowel movements and stool consistency more than psyllium. A 2014 review that reports that trial gives the result as 3.5 against 2.8 complete bowel movements a week. In 120 healthy adults with low fiber intake who had 3 to 6 stools a week, 2.8 oz (80 g) of prunes a day for 4 weeks raised stool frequency to 6.8 bowel movements a week, and 120 g to 5.6, against 5.4 on water alone.

Pooled, the picture is less clear. A 2024 meta-analysis of foods for chronic constipation, 23 studies and 1714 people, found whole fruit beat psyllium by 0.36 bowel movements a week. Most of that came from kiwifruit, and the two prune trials showed no difference from psyllium. A 2021 review of over-the-counter treatments rated prunes and other fruit laxatives as moderate evidence, grade B, behind polyethylene glycol and senna at grade A.

Preterm birth, in observational data only

In a Norwegian cohort of 18,888 pregnant women, with 950 spontaneous preterm deliveries, eating dried fruit was linked to 18 percent lower odds of spontaneous preterm delivery (odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94). Dried fruit meant raisins, apricots, prunes, figs and dates counted together, and prunes were not analyzed on their own. This is an association and cannot show that prunes prevent preterm birth.

Who should be careful

Not for everyone. Expect wind. In the 4-week trial of 120 adults, flatulence was significantly more common on 2.8 to 4.2 oz (80 to 120 g) of prunes a day than on water alone. The 2021 review lists diarrhea, nausea, bloating and abdominal pain as the common side effects of fruit and fiber laxatives, with no serious adverse events reported.

We found no harm specific to prunes in pregnancy, and also no study that looked for one. The randomized trial of 376 pregnant women found long-term soluble fiber supplements safe, which is about fiber and not about prunes. We found no data on prunes in gestational diabetes. If you have it, how much dried fruit fits your diet is a question for the person managing it.

What expert bodies say

The American Gastroenterological Association advises that constipation in pregnancy can be treated with dietary fiber, lactulose or polyethylene glycol laxatives. That is best practice advice without a formal evidence grade, and it does not name prunes. The British Dietetic Association guideline of 2025 pooled 2 trials in 86 adults and found prunes softened stools no more than psyllium, a difference of 0.45 points on the Bristol stool scale (95% CI minus 0.24 to 1.14), on very low certainty evidence. Pregnancy was outside its scope. The European Union authorizes the label claim that prunes contribute to normal bowel function, which is not specific to pregnancy.

How we searched

Searched: a local copy of PubMed, queried on 7 October 2026. Prunes or dried plums with pregnancy, constipation or laxative returned 13 hits, and only the dried fruit cohort was in pregnancy. Constipation in pregnancy with fiber, diet or laxatives returned 38. Dried fruit with pregnancy or preterm birth returned 8, sorbitol with pregnancy returned 12 that were all about iron drugs, and prunes with side effects returned 7. We also searched our local copy of ClinicalTrials.gov, which listed no trial of prunes or of constipation in pregnancy, the EU claims register, Retraction Watch, where none of the sources was listed, and the web.

Included: the 2015 Cochrane review, a 2014 systematic review, a 2024 meta-analysis, a 2021 review of over-the-counter treatments, four randomized trials, the Norwegian cohort, the 2024 American Gastroenterological Association update, the 2025 British Dietetic Association guideline and the EU register entry.

Excluded: a duplicate publication of the dietetic guideline, two reviews of constipation after birth, older versions of the Cochrane review and two older evidence summaries that it superseded. We also left out a study of prunes in women after menopause, an animal study of prune juice and a yogurt mixture in which prunes could not be separated. A scoping review added no new data, and a 2022 pregnancy trial turned out to test a herbal syrup.

What we read: the full text of the dietetic guideline, in its section on fruit. Everything else was read as an abstract.

What we could not get: the full texts of the 2024 meta-analysis and the 2014 review, so their prune numbers come from abstracts and from the guideline. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists patient page and the NICE summary on constipation in pregnancy were blocked, and the EU condition of use for the prune claim could not be retrieved.

What would change this answer

A randomized trial of prunes or prune juice in constipated pregnant women. None was registered in our copy of ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 October 2026, and web searches found none.
Blood sugar data for prunes in women with gestational diabetes, which we did not find.
An analysis of prunes on their own in the pregnancy cohort, rather than all dried fruit together.

For what else prunes do and do not do, see the prunes page, the prune juice page and prunes and constipation.

The food behind this question

Prunes: the bowel claim that passed and the bone claim that has not — numbers, evidence and safety
Prune juice: one small trial behind a big reputation — numbers, evidence and safety

The same question for other foods (pregnancy)

Sources

ev-prpr-01 · Meta-analysis or systematic review · Cochrane systematic review of RCTs · n = 40
Pregnant women who received fibre supplementation had significantly higher frequency of stools compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) 2.24 times per week, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.52; 40 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence).
Who: pregnant women with constipation; fiber supplementation versus no intervention
Effect: stool frequency MD +2.24 per week (95% CI 0.96 to 3.52); moderate-quality evidence; no prune-specific trial included
Certainty: Single small trial with moderate risk of bias; fiber was biscuits or wheat bran, not prunes.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2015 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
ev-prpr-02 · Meta-analysis or systematic review · Cochrane systematic review of RCTs · n = 180
There is insufficient evidence to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy, due to limited data (few studies with small sample size and no meta-analyses).
Who: pregnant women with constipation; 4 included studies, 2 with usable data
Effect: no meta-analysis possible; no trials of prunes, osmotic laxatives or stool softeners in pregnancy
Certainty: Search to April 2015; no prune trial in pregnancy has been found since (corpus, ClinicalTrials.gov, web, 2026-10-07).
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2015 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
ev-prpr-03 · Meta-analysis or systematic review · systematic review of RCTs without pooling · n = 4 trials
In constipation, 3 weeks of prune consumption (100 g/day) improved stool frequency (3.5 vs. 2.8 CSBM per week, P = 0.006) and stool consistency (3.2 vs. 2.8 on Bristol stool form scale, P = 0.02) compared with psyllium (22 g/day).
Who: adults in 4 RCTs of prunes, one in constipation and three in non-constipated subjects; not pregnant
Effect: constipation: 3.5 vs 2.8 complete spontaneous bowel movements per week (P = 0.006); Bristol score 3.2 vs 2.8 (P = 0.02); no meta-analysis
Certainty: The constipation result rests on one crossover trial of 40 people; two trials had unclear risk of bias.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2014 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
ev-prpr-04 · Meta-analysis or systematic review · systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of RCTs · n = 1714
Fruits resulted in higher stool frequency than psyllium (MD: +0.36 bowel movements [BM]/week, [0.25-0.48], n = 232), kiwifruits in particular (MD: +0.36 BM/week, [0.24-0.48], n = 192); there was no difference for prunes compared with psyllium.
Who: adults with chronic constipation; 23 studies, 1714 participants; 2 prune trials; not pregnant
Effect: fruits vs psyllium MD +0.36 BM/week (0.25 to 0.48), n = 232; prunes vs psyllium no difference
Certainty: Only two prune trials; comparator is psyllium, an active treatment, not placebo.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2024 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
ev-prpr-05 · Meta-analysis or systematic review · systematic review of RCTs with USPSTF-style grading · n = 41 trials
There was good evidence (grade A recommendation) for the use of the osmotic laxative polyethylene glycol (PEG) and the stimulant senna; moderate evidence (grade B) for psyllium, SupraFiber, magnesium salts, stimulants (bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate), fruit-based laxatives (kiwi, mango, prunes, and ficus), and yogurt with galacto-oligosaccharide/prunes/linseed oil; and insufficient evidence (grade I) for polydextrose, inulin, and fructo-oligosaccharide.
Who: adults with chronic constipation in 41 RCTs of at least 4 weeks, 2004 to 2020; not pregnant
Effect: grade A: PEG, senna; grade B: psyllium, magnesium salts, fruit-based laxatives incl. prunes; common adverse events diarrhea, nausea, bloating, abdominal pain; no serious adverse events
Certainty: Grading by study quality score, no pooled effect size for prunes.
Am J Gastroenterol, 2021 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
ev-prpr-06 · Randomized controlled trial(s) · single-blind randomized crossover trial, 3-week periods · n = 40
The number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week (primary outcome measure) and stool consistency scores improved significantly (P<0.05) with dried plums when compared to psyllium.
Who: 40 constipated subjects (3 men, 37 women, mean age 38), not pregnant; 50 g prunes twice daily vs 11 g psyllium twice daily, 6 g fiber/day each
Effect: complete spontaneous bowel movements and stool consistency better with prunes (P<0.05); straining and global symptoms no difference
Certainty: Small, short, single-blind; effect sizes not given in abstract.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2011 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
ev-prpr-07 · Randomized controlled trial(s) · parallel three-arm randomized controlled trial, 4 weeks · n = 120
Stool frequency was significantly greater following 80 g/d (mean 6.8 bowel movements/wk, SD 3.8) and 120 g/d (5.6, SD 1.9) prune consumption compared with control (5.4, SD 2.1) (P = 0.023), but WGTT was unchanged.
Who: 120 healthy adults with low fiber intake and 3 to 6 stools a week; not pregnant
Effect: stool frequency 6.8 (80 g/d) and 5.6 (120 g/d) vs 5.4 bowel movements/week control (P = 0.023); gut transit time unchanged
Certainty: Outcome assessors blinded; participants not.
Clin Nutr, 2019 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
ev-prpr-08 · Randomized controlled trial(s) · parallel three-arm randomized controlled trial, 4 weeks · n = 120
The incidence of flatulence was significantly higher after prune consumption.
Who: 120 healthy adults with low fiber intake; not pregnant
Effect: higher incidence of flatulence with prunes; otherwise well tolerated
Certainty: Frequency of flatulence not given in abstract.
Clin Nutr, 2019 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
ev-prpr-09 · Randomized controlled trial(s) · randomized trial, three arms, 2 weeks after 2-week baseline · n = 40
These changes were accompanied by an increase in the number of bowel movements and a change to a softer stool consistency in Gps A and B, with no changes in number of bowel movements or stool consistency in Gp C.
Who: 40 women with constipation in the third trimester; 10 g/day fiber as corn biscuit or wheat bran vs no intervention
Effect: more bowel movements and softer stools in both fiber groups; no change in controls
Certainty: Fiber from cereals, not prunes; tiny groups; effect size not given in abstract.
Hum Nutr Appl Nutr, 1985 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
ev-prpr-10 · Randomized controlled trial(s) · randomized controlled trial · n = 376
Importantly, our study verified the safety of long-term soluble fiber supplementation during pregnancy.
Who: 376 pregnant women at high risk of metabolic syndrome, enrolled at 11 to 13 weeks of gestation
Effect: lower need for constipation medication in the fiber group; no safety signal from long-term soluble fiber
Certainty: Soluble fiber supplement, not prunes; numbers for constipation outcome not in abstract.
Food Funct, 2024 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
ev-prpr-11 · Observational data · prospective cohort · n = 18888
Alliums (garlic, onion, leek, and spring onion) [OR: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.94), P = 0.005] and dried fruits (raisins, apricots, prunes, figs, and dates) [OR: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.94); P = 0.005] were associated with a decreased risk of spontaneous PTD.
Who: 18,888 women in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort (MoBa), 950 spontaneous preterm deliveries
Effect: dried fruits OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.94) for spontaneous preterm delivery; strongest for raisins with PPROM
Certainty: Observational; dried fruits pooled (raisins, apricots, prunes, figs, dates); prunes not analyzed alone.
J Nutr, 2013 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
ev-prpr-12 · Position of an expert body · expert clinical practice update, no formal systematic review · n = —
Treatment options include dietary fiber, lactulose, and polyethylene glycol-based laxatives.
Who: pregnant patients with constipation
Effect: first-line options: dietary fiber, lactulose, polyethylene glycol
Certainty: Best Practice Advice without formal evidence grading; prunes not named.
Gastroenterology, 2024 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the abstract
ev-prpr-13 · Position of an expert body · GRADE guideline with Delphi consensus · n = 86
Overall, prunes had no greater impact on stool consistency compared to psyllium supplements (MD: +0.45 points in the Bristol Stool Form Scale, 95% CI: −0.24, 1.14 points).
Who: adults with chronic idiopathic constipation; pregnancy outside scope
Effect: prunes vs psyllium stool consistency MD +0.45 Bristol points (95% CI -0.24 to 1.14); very low evidence, qualified recommendation
Certainty: Built on the 2024 meta-analysis; prune trials few and small.
J Hum Nutr Diet, 2025 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the fulltext
ev-prpr-14 · Position of an expert body · EU register entry · n = —
POL-HC-8372 Dried plums of 'prune' cultivars (Prunus domestica L.) Dried plums/prunes contribute to normal bowel function Authorised
Who: EU food labeling
Effect: claim authorized
Certainty: Condition of use (daily intake of 100 g, Regulation (EU) 1018/2013) not retrieved verbatim; not specific to pregnancy.
EU Register on nutrition and health claims, claim POL-HC-8372, snapshot 2026-09-21 · checked 2026-10-07 · we read the section

How this page was made. Evidence was extracted from primary sources into cards, every number was re-checked against the source, and the text was written from those cards. Bioma Learn has no human medical reviewer at this time, and we say so rather than invent one. Methodology. This is information, not medical advice.