Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi all - sorry if this has been covered before but can I ask - how much alcohol can I drink safely whilst breastfeeding?


I'm sure I remember being told at the breastfeeding workshop at Dulwich hospital that drinking anything up to two BOTTLES of wine is safe. Can't say I've tested that to the limit, but I've never seen anything in writing to back that up and now I'm unsure.


Advice gratefully accepted!

Hiya, I was told the same at the King's breastfeeding work shop, that it would take the equivalent of two bottles of wine before your milk was effected! Seems rather excessive to me but I liked the stat;-)


I have a friend who is a GP, spoke to her about it, she hadn't heard the two bottle stat, and also agreed sounded excessive, however her view was you can drink, but not to feed if you felt tipsy. Basically sensible non excessive drinking! Would love to know more about the Kings research re the two bottles!!!

I literally had two sips yesterday and, after months of abstinence, felt affected!!! Two bottles is outrageous - I'd probably give myself alcohol poisoning my tolerance is so low nowadays, not to mention I don't think you'd be fit to care for a young baby aftre drinking that much.


But on a more serious note, did anyone else read the article about a year ago saying that most of the advice about what not to eat and drink while pregnant is generally overly cautious, but that people should have some (not much though) concern about boozing while breastfeeding......? I am going to try and find it.....

ooh, i like that, two bottles sounds like just the thing i need after a day with my two year old and my nine week old. i'm sure that i read that it takes 2 hours to 'process' one glass and that something like only 2% of the alcohol consumed passes into your breast milk.


I felt quite guilty about enjoying a glass of wine in the first couple of weeks after my daughter was born, but I got over that pretty quickly and now like to share a glass or two with my husband once the little ones are in bed - life is too short and the weather is too nice. I notice no change in her (i.e. she's not more gassy, she doesn't sleep any more or any less, etc).


Everything in moderation is my view.

Two bottles! Ha ha!


The most I ever drank while feeding might have been around that much, much cava and wine at my friend's 30th house party, after a long time of total abstinence, drinking til 2am, fed the baby at 3am and she was definitely hungover in the morning! I was fine though, reckon that sleep deprivation creates the worst hangovers with or without the booze.


Haven't repeated the experiment though.

I'd be in hospital after two bottles these days :-S


Having breastfed for around 2.5 years in total (2 kids) there is no WAY I would have got through it without the occasional (nightly, stress of raising kids and all that) glass of vino. My kids never seemed to suffer, but that said probably the most I ever had was about the equivalent of one bottle of wine.


I remember being told the two bottles thing at the workshop too, made a complete fool of myself by doing a little celebratory "whoop" in an otherwise quiet room!

Can't see King's giving advice that is old cobblers, there must be research to back it up. That said, although I wouldn't go so far as drinking two bottles, it is nice to know that you can drink in moderation. Would be good to find out the basis for the advice :-)

2 Bottles? Thats far too much, I would be verrry drunk. I just refrained from having anything more than a glass of wine for the first 12 months or so, now my daughter is 17 months (still feeding) I still don't drink much, but a little more than I would have before, maybe 2-3 glasses.


If I consult my breastfeeding bible it tells me.. It takes a 8.5 stone woman 2-3 hours to eliminate the alcohol contained in one small glass of lager or wine, yet this can be up to 13 hours if the 'one' drink contained high amounts of alcohol (such as a cocktail). Any alcohol consumed by the mother will reach its peak in breastmilk after 30-60 mins.


My advice, do NOT drink 2 bottles of wine, drink 2 units :)

I remember the MW running the workshop telling us that she'd breastfeed her children whilst watching 'Enders with a G+T nightly. Brill!


But then at a weaning workshop, the soppy lady running it told us not to drink any alcohol at all whilst BF. (She also told us to only use jars or baby food in a 'genuine emergency, like if you're stranded somewhere and thats all you can get your hands on...) and also told us Rusks were literally works of the devil. I did literally have to Laugh Out Loud)


Personally I have a few glasses of whatever a week, and Son seems to be fine.

I read/heard somewhere alcohol is not stored in breast milk unless you drink a very large quantity (I guess this is where the 2 bottles of wine figure comes in). Which makes sense as you don't generally excrete alcohol through other means i.e. sweating unless you have a very heavy night. However I also read it can make breastmilk taste a bit funny. But I guess this applies to all food groups/drinks etc.

Think you may be on to something there fairylamb... sounds vaguely familiar and logical. I also got the g&t anecdote from the lady who ran my session Ruth!


Think moderation wins the day for me, which is the norm anyway (excepting the rare night out). Also comforted by the fact that, as the boy sleeps through now, there's a good 8 hours between drinking and the next feed!

With you MrsMc, though I have to say that I was a light weight before having children, and now even more so. Two glasses of wine and I'm pretty tipsy, then ready to sleep - not much danger of me drinking huge quantities on that basis!


I've always been quite relaxed about the odd glass of wine when breastfeeding, all things in moderation I say.


Molly

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...