Content uploaded by Julie A. Mennella
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Julie A. Mennella on Oct 21, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Acute Alcohol Consumption Disrupts the Hormonal Milieu of
Lactating Women
Julie A. Mennella, M. Yanina Pepino, and Karen L. Teff
Monell Chemical Senses Center (J.A.M., M.Y.P., K.L.T.), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-3308
Department of Medicine (K.L.T.), Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19104
Abstract
Despite the lack of scientific evidence to support the claim that alcohol is a galactagogue, lactating
women have been advised to drink alcohol as an aid to lactation for centuries. To test the hypothesis
that alcohol consumption affects the hormonal response in lactating women, we conducted a within-
subjects design study in which 17 women consumed a 0.4 g/kg dose of alcohol in orange juice during
one test session and an equal volume of orange juice during the other. Changes in plasma prolactin,
oxytocin, and cortisol levels during and after breast stimulation, lactational performance, and mood
states were compared under the two experimental conditions. Oxytocin levels significantly
decreased, whereas prolactin levels and measures of sedation, dysphoria, and drunkenness
significantly increased, during the immediate hours after alcohol consumption. Changes in oxytocin
were related to measures of lactational performance such as milk yield and ejection latencies, whereas
changes in prolactin were related to self-reported measures of drunkenness. Although alcohol
consumption resulted in significantly higher cortisol when compared with the control condition,
cortisol levels were not significantly correlated with any of the indices of lactational performance or
self-reported drug effects. Moreover, cortisol levels steadily decreased on the control day, indicating
that the procedures were not stressful to the subjects. In conclusion, recommending alcohol as an aid
to lactation may be counterproductive. In the short term, mothers may be more relaxed, but the
Correspondence to: Julie A. Mennella.
Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Julie A. Mennella, Ph.D., 3500 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19104-3308. E-mail: mennella@monell.org..
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health Grant R01AA09523, Diabetes Research Center Grant RR00040, National
Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Grant 19525, and the Office of Research on Women′s Health.
Present address for K.L.T.: National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Disease, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abbreviations:
ARCI
Addiction Research Center Inventory
AUC
area under the curve
BAC
blood alcohol concentration(s)
LSD
Lysgeric
PCAG
Pentobarbital-Chlorpromazine-Alcohol Group
JCEM is published monthly by The Endocrine Society (http://www.endo-society.org), the foremost professional society serving the
endocrine community.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
Published in final edited form as:
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 April ; 90(4): 1979–1985.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
hormonal milieu underlying lactational performance is disrupted, and, in turn, the infant’s milk
supply is diminished.
THE TRADITIONAL WISDOM of many cultures relates that women can optimize the quality
and quantity of their milk to meet the needs of their infants through diet and psychological
well-being. Each culture claims some milk-producing (galactogenic) substances, and many
cultures claim alcohol to be such a substance (1). Such beliefs were so ingrained in American
tradition that, in 1895, Anheuser-Busch Company, a major U.S. brewery, produced Malt-
Nutrine, a low-alcoholic beer that was sold exclusively in drugstores and prescribed by
physicians as a tonic for pregnant and lactating women (2). Even in more modern times, a
popular book for nursing mothers hailed the virtues of alcohol as a galactagogue, claiming ". . .
this is one time in life when the therapeutic qualities of alcohol are a blessing " (3).
Such claims have not gone unchallenged. In 1987, the Journal of the American Medical
Association published a letter from a physician asking whether there was any scientific basis
for prescribing a daily beer to lactating women (4). The scientific basis, it was declared (5),
can be found in the finding that the consumption of beer, unlike other alcoholic beverages,
increases serum prolactin (5,6). There are several problems with this conclusion, however.
First, the subjects in these research studies were men and nonlactating women. No study to
date had examined the effects of alcohol consumption on the hormonal milieu of lactating
women, additionally highlighting the lack of evidence-based practice related to
recommendations regarding alcohol consumption during lactation. There has been
considerable research in animal models (for review, see Ref. 7), however. Although the vast
majority of these studies reported that ethanol administration decreased suckling-induced
prolactin, the most recent study, which extended the observation period (8), actually
demonstrated significant suckling-induced increases in prolactin after ethanol administration.
These latter findings led the authors to conclude that oxytocin, rather than prolactin, may be
the primary avenue by which alcohol induces growth retardation during lactation.
Second, the rise in prolactin levels after alcohol consumption was observed after the
consumption of different types of alcoholic beverages (9,10) and was not specific to beer
consumption, as the folklore suggested (2,4,5). Moreover, if alcohol does indeed increase
prolactin levels in maternal circulation, it is not apparent whether such increases affect
lactational performance. Although prolactin appears to be essential for the initiation of lactation
and its maintenance in the long term (11), no clear temporal correlation exists between plasma
prolactin levels and milk yield of a particular breastfeed in humans (12).
Third, it is perplexing that one would argue that alcohol enhances lactational performance when
this same drug, at similar or slightly higher doses, was used in the not-so-distant past to treat
premature labor (13,14). The efficacy of alcohol in partially blocking uterine contractions
during labor is due, in part, to its inhibition of oxytocin (14), a hormone that is also involved
in the contraction of myoepithelial cells surrounding the alveoli, which, in turn, causes the
ejection of milk from the mammary gland during lactation (15).
Fourth, research conducted during the past decade refutes the lore that alcohol is a
galactagogue. Rather, lactating mothers produced less milk without changes in the caloric
content of their milk (16), and, in turn, infants consumed less breast milk and less calories
during the immediate hours after maternal consumption of beer as well as other types of
alcoholic beverages (17,18). The fact that infants sucked more during the beginning of the
breastfeed (17) suggested that they were having difficulty in obtaining milk from the breast
because infants suck at faster rates when milk flow is lower (19).
Mennella et al. Page 2
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The present study tested the hypothesis that the alcohol-induced depression in milk production
in lactating women was due to disruptions in the hormonal milieu. Oxytocin and prolactin
responses were evaluated when lactating women consumed a moderate dose of alcohol, one
that was equivalent to one to two drinks and represents the average amount of alcohol lactating
women reported consuming during a drinking occasion (20).
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Seventeen nonsmoking, healthy lactating women (six primiparous and 11 multiparous), who
were exclusively nursing infants between the ages of 2 and 4 months, were recruited from ads
in local newspapers and newsletters. One additional woman began testing but was excluded
because of procedural difficulties. During initial screening, women were excluded if they were
lifetime alcohol abstainers, on any medication including oral contraceptives, or had resumed
menstruation, because there is some suggestion that both basal and peak prolactin levels are
lower in such women (21). All procedures were approved by the Office of Regulatory Affairs
at the University of Pennsylvania, and each subject gave informed written consent before
testing.
The women (10 Caucasian, five African American, one Asian, and one from another ethnic
group) were, on average, 31.9 ± 1.2 yr of age, with a mean body mass index of 26.4 ± 1.1 kg/
m
2
. They reported that alcohol intake was low during pregnancy (mean = 0.2 ± 0.1 standard
drinks per month) but significantly increased to, on average, 1.5 ± 0.6 drinks per month during
lactation [paired t-test (16df) = -2.14; P = 0.048]. These numbers likely underestimate alcohol
usage (22).
Procedures
A within-subjects design study that controlled for time of day was employed because milk
composition and hormonal responses vary throughout the day. Using methodologies developed
for the study of neurally mediated hormonal responses in humans (23), women were tested at
the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) at the University of Pennsylvania on 2 d
separated by 1 wk (±2 d). After abstaining from alcohol for at least 3 d, all subjects arrived at
the GCRC at 0800 h (±30 min) after an overnight fast and remained fasted during the entire
testing procedures, because prolactin levels can be potentiated by certain gastrointestinal
hormones and high blood glucose levels (24). Mothers were not allowed to watch television,
sleep, or talk, as well as read about food or infants throughout the entire testing session because
these behaviors may affect the hormones under study. Instead, they were able to read magazines
or novels or to converse on other topics. Moreover, infants were not present because the mere
sound, sight, or smell of the baby often stimulates milk let-down or leaking (25). Breast
stimulation was provided by an electric breast pump because prior work revealed that infants
′ sucking intensity changes when their mothers′ milk contains alcohol (20).
Approximately 30 min after arrival, an iv line was inserted into the antecubital vein of an arm.
Because prolactin is very stress labile and rises during the first half-hour after a needle prick
(26), subjects acclimated in a private testing room for 45 min. After acclimatization, blood
samples were obtained at fixed intervals (-40, -25, and -10 min) before drinking a 0.4 g/kg dose
of alcohol in orange juice (15% vol/vol) on one testing day (alcohol condition) and an equal
volume of orange juice on the other day (control condition). During both conditions, 3 ml of
alcohol were pipetted onto the surface of the cup to serve as a smell and flavor mask (27). The
order of testing was randomized between subjects. The beverage was aliquoted into two equal
volumes, and each aliquot was consumed within consecutive 5-min periods.
Mennella et al. Page 3
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
As shown in Table 1, approximately 35 min after subjects started drinking the beverage, blood
samples were again taken every 2 min for 16 min before and during stimulation of alternating
breasts (35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, and 51 min after consumption of beverage) with an
electric breast pump (Medela, Crystal Lake, IL), and then every 15 min without breast
stimulation for the next 90 min (65, 80, 95, 110, 125, and 140 min). Each sample collection
involved the removal of 1 ml of blood to clear the catheter tubing, followed by a 5-ml collection
into Vacutainer tubes containing EDTA. Samples were kept on ice for no longer than 1 h and
were centrifuged, separated into aliquots, and stored at -70 C for later assay. The latency (in
seconds) to eject the first droplet of milk was recorded, and the total amount of milk pumped
(in milliliters) during this 16-min period was measured. Nurses were blind to the conditions
of the experiment.
Blood alcohol concentrations (BAC; g/liter) were estimated by having subjects breathe into an
Alco-Sensor III (Intoximeters, Inc., St. Louis, MO) throughout the test sessions (Table 1). The
rationale for the estimation of BAC from "breath alcohol" measurements was based in the
simplicity, accuracy, and reliability of the method, which has become a standard procedure in
alcohol pharmacokinetic studies (28,29). The Alco-Sensor III device provides readings of BAC
levels by assuming a blood to breath ratio of 2100:1. Previous research established that the
correlation between ethanol levels measured in blood samples and those measured in exhaled
alcohol concentration breath samples was better than 0.98 for both the absorption and
elimination phases (30). Subjects also completed the Addiction Research Center Inventory
(ARCI) throughout each test session to assess various measures of self-reported drug effects
(27). This questionnaire consists of a number of scales including the Morphine Benzedrine
Group scale, which measures drug-induced euphoria; the Pentobarbital-Chlorpromazine-
Alcohol Group (PCAG) scale, which measures sedation; the Lysgeric (LSD) scale, which
measures dysphoric and somatic effects; the Benzedrine Group and Amphetamine scale, which
measures stimulant-like effects; and the Drunk Scale, which measures drunkenness.
Hormone assays
Plasma samples were measured in duplicate by double-antibody RIAs for oxytocin and cortisol
and by immunoradiometric assay for prolactin. Standards were run with each assay. All
samples from a given subject from both days (alcohol and control) of testing were run within
the same assay to reduce interassay variability. Cortisol levels were monitored on the control
day to ensure that alterations in hormonal responses were not related to the stress of the
procedures (10). Intraassay variation was 2.8, 3.0, and 1.3%, and interassay variation was 1.9,
8.9, and 10.2% for oxytocin, prolactin, and cortisol, respectively. All assays were performed
by the Diabetes Research Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
Oxytocin was assayed without extraction by using a competitive RIA, with materials supplied
by Phoenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Belmont, CA). The antiserum cross-reactivity with arginine
vasopressin, GH, α-atrial natriuretic peptide (1-28), methionine-enkephalin, GH-releasing
factor, somastatin, TRH, vasoactive intestinal peptide, and pituitary adenylate cyclase-
activating polypeptide 27-NH
2
is 0%. The minimal detectable concentration was 10 pg/ml (8
pmol/liter).
Prolactin was assayed by a direct, two-site immunoradiometric assay without extraction, using
materials supplied by ICN Diagnostics (Costa Mesa, CA). The antiserum cross-reactivity is
less than 0.01% for human chorionic gonadotropin, TSH, LH, and FSH. The minimal detectable
concentration was 2.5 ng/ml (108.8 pmol/liter).
Cortisol was measured without extraction by a competitive double-antibody RIA kit from ICN
Diagnostics. The antiserum cross-reacts 12.3% with 11-deoxycortisol, 5.5% with
corticosterone, and less than 2.7% with all other steroids tested.
Mennella et al. Page 4
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Data analyses
Separate repeated measures mixed ANOVA were conducted to determine whether there were
significant differences in prolactin, oxytocin, cortisol, and BAC levels, as well as various
measures of self-reported drug effects with experimental condition (alcohol and control) and
time as the within-subjects factors. When significant, post hoc Fisher least significant
difference analyses were conducted. Because there were no significant differences in the basal
values for oxytocin [F(2,32df) = 2.17; P = 0.13] and prolactin [F(2,32df) = 0.50; P = 0.61], we
calculated changes in prolactin and oxytocin from respective baseline value (mean of three
baseline samples) for each subject. There was a significant effect of time on cortisol baseline
samples [F(2,32df) = 60.77; P < 0.0001]. Therefore, the last sample (t =-10 min) was used as
the baseline value. We then determined the peak value for each hormone when compared with
baseline and calculated the area under the curve (AUC) values by using a point-to-point method
(OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA) from baseline to the end of the test session (t =
140 min). The areas for each hormone and for each subject were calculated independently.
Paired t-tests were used to compare the peak value of each hormone and the AUC between
experimental conditions, respectively. The critical value for significance was P < 0.05, and all
P values represent two-tailed tests.
Results
Hormonal responses and lactational performance
Oxytocin. There was a significant interaction between condition and time on oxytocin levels
[F(15,240df) = 1.83; P = 0.03]. As shown in Fig. 1, oxytocin levels were significantly depressed
during and after breast stimulation on the day women consumed alcohol when compared with
the control day. Likewise, the oxytocin AUCs were, on average, 78% (±26.6) smaller during
the test session in which women consumed alcohol when compared with control [paired t(16df)
= -3.22; P = 0.005].
Although there were no significant correlations with oxytocin AUC during breast stimulation
and milk ejection latency (Table 2), there was a significant correlation between oxytocin levels
during the initial minutes of breast stimulation (t = 35-37 min) and the milk ejection latency
on the day women consumed alcohol [r(17df) = -0.48, P = 0.05; and r(17df) =-0.55, P = 0.02,
respectively]. That is, the lower the levels of oxytocin, the longer their latency to eject milk.
Peak oxytocin levels on the day women consumed alcohol did not significantly differ from
peak levels of the control day [paired t(16df) = -1.10; P = 0.29]. The individual differences in
oxytocin response to breast stimulation were preserved such that oxytocin AUCs on the control
day were significantly correlated with AUCs on the alcohol day (Table 2).
Twelve of the 17 women produced less oxytocin during breast stimulation on the alcohol day
when compared with the control day (P < 0.05). These women also had lower milk yields
during the 16 min of pumping when compared with the remaining women [F(1,15df) = 9.35;
P = 0.008]. They produced, on average, 13 ± 7% less milk during these 16 min of pumping
(control vs. alcohol, 131 ± 10 vs. 113 ± 11 ml). There were no significant relationships between
the oxytocin AUCs or oxytocin levels on either the control or alcohol day and any of the self-
reported measured indices of drug effects (all P values >0.10).
Prolactin. There was a significant interaction between condition and time on prolactin plasma
levels [F(15,240df) = 3.31; P < 0.001]. As shown in Fig. 1, in contrast to that observed for
oxytocin, alcohol significantly magnified the prolactin response both during and after breast
stimulation, and peak prolactin levels were significantly higher on the day women consumed
alcohol when compared with the control day [paired t(16df) = 2.52; P = 0.02]. The AUCs
significantly increased, on average, by 336% (±222) during the alcohol session [paired t(16df)
Mennella et al. Page 5
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
= 3.52; P = 0.003]. This enhanced response was observed in 76% of the women tested (P =
0.02).
Although there were no significant relationships on the control day between prolactin levels
and milk ejection latency or amount of milk expressed (all P values > 0.10), prolactin AUCs
during breast stimulation were significantly correlated with milk ejection latencies on the day
women consumed alcohol (Table 2). The higher the prolactin levels, the longer the milk ejection
latency. However, unlike oxytocin, there was no significant correlation between prolactin
AUCs during breast stimulation on the control day and prolactin AUCs on the alcohol day
(Table 2). Ratings of drunkenness, as measured by the ARCI, were also significantly correlated
with relative increases in prolactin levels when BAC levels were peaking [t = 65 min; r(17df)
= 0.60; P = 0.01].
Cortisol. Although the repeated measure mixed ANOVA analysis revealed only a tendency
for an interaction effect between condition and time for cortisol levels [F(15,240df) = 1.63;
P = 0.07], there were significant effects of condition [F(1,16df) = 5.91; P = 0.03] and time [F
(15,240df) = 4.39; P < 0.001] on cortisol levels. As shown in Fig. 1, alcohol consumption
resulted in significantly higher cortisol when compared with the control condition. Likewise,
peak cortisol levels were significantly higher on the day women consumed alcohol [paired t
(16df) = 2.17; P = 0.05]. However, there was no significant difference in cortisol AUCs between
the two conditions [paired t(16df) = 0.94; P = 0.36]. Cortisol AUCs were not significantly
correlated with prolactin [control day: r(17df) = 0.29, P = 0.26; alcohol day: r(17df) = -0.05,
P = 0.84] or oxytocin AUCs [control day: r(17df) = 0.41, P = 0.10; alcohol day: r(17df) = -0.10,
P = 0.72]. Neither the cortisol AUCs nor cortisol levels on either the control or alcohol day
significantly correlated with any of the indices of lactational performance (i.e. milk ejection
latency, amount of milk expressed) or self-reported drug effects (all P values > 0.10). Figure
1 also shows that cortisol levels steadily decreased on the control day, thus suggesting that the
procedures were not stressful to the subjects.
Ethanol pharmacokinetics and self-reported drug effects
BAC peaked approximately 43-51 min after alcohol consumption and decreased thereafter. As
shown in Fig. 2, feelings of sedation [F(1,16df) = 39.19; P < 0.0001], dysphoria [F(1,16df) =
10.94; P < 0.005], and drunkenness [F(1,16df) = 37.95; P < 0.0001] significantly increased
during the testing session in which women consumed the alcoholic beverage. These changes
in self-reported drug effects paralleled the changing blood alcohol levels.
Discussion
Moderate alcohol consumption disrupted the two key hormones underlying lactational
performance. During the immediate hours after alcohol consumption, oxytocin levels
significantly decreased, whereas prolactin levels significantly increased both during and after
breast stimulation. The magnitude and persistence of the hormonal response in lactating women
is more robust when compared with men and nonlactating women (5,6,9,10), further
highlighting the dynamics of the system under study. The diminished oxytocin response was
significantly related to decreases in milk yield and milk ejection. These latter findings suggest
that such changes in hormonal responses mediate the diminished milk production by lactating
women (16) and disruption in their infants′ suckling behaviors and milk intake observed in
prior research (17,18,31), and further dispute the lore that alcohol is a galactagogue.
In contrast to the response observed for oxytocin, prolactin levels significantly increased after
alcohol consumption both during and after periods of breast stimulation. The alcohol-induced
increases in prolactin were related to self-reported perceptions of drunkenness. Women also
reported increased feelings of sedation and dysphoria during the immediate hours after alcohol
Mennella et al. Page 6
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
consumption. Because sleep deprivation increases feelings of sedation and dysphoria (32), we
hypothesize that sleep deprivation, which is common among mothers of young infants,
contributed to the increased feelings of sedation and dysphoria observed on the day lactating
women consumed alcohol, as discussed herein. Although prolactin levels during breast
stimulation were related to milk ejection latency on the day women consumed alcohol, it should
be emphasized that no relationships were observed between prolactin levels or AUCs and the
amount of milk produced on either test day. This is consistent with prior research revealing
that although prolactin appears to be essential for the initiation of lactation and its maintenance
in the long term (11), no clear temporal correlation exists between plasma prolactin levels and
milk yield of a particular breastfeed in humans (12). It remains to be determined whether the
relationship between alcohol-induced changes in prolactin and milk ejection latency was a
spurious correlation and secondary to the effect of alcohol on other mediating factors
underlying ejection.
Cortisol levels were also increased during the test session in which women consumed the
alcoholic beverage, a finding that is consistent with research from animal models (33) and
some human studies (34). However, such changes in cortisol were not related to changes in
oxytocin or prolactin, measures of lactational performance, or mood states.
The production, secretion, and ejection of milk are the result of highly synchronized endocrine
and neuroendocrine processes, which are governed, in part, by the frequency and intensity of
the infants′ sucking. Breast stimulation resulted in transient release of both oxytocin and
prolactin to levels previously observed by other researchers (35). Although these two key
hormones usually behave in tandem under normal conditions, alcohol consumption resulted
in differential and divergent responses. We hypothesize that alcohol acts at the central nervous
system level through a general depression or by inhibiting synaptic transmission of afferent
impulses to the hypothalamus. Such depression or inhibition would decrease oxytocin levels
(36), but, because projections from the hypothalamus exert an inhibitory control of prolactin,
prolactin levels would increase (37). Whether the enhanced prolactin response is also due to
alcohol′s simulation of extrapituitary tissues such as the mammary glands (38), which are
capable of producing prolactin, is not yet known. Animal studies suggest that alcohol, directly
or indirectly via estrogens, may elevate prolactin by stimulating activity of lactotropes in the
adenohypophysis (38).
Recent studies indicate that one fourth of the women surveyed reported that they were
encouraged by health professionals to drink once they began lactating (1,39). Advice ranged
from the recommendation that drinking alcohol shortly before nursing will facilitate let-down
and milk production to the belief that by drinking such milk, the infant will relax, become less
"colicky," and obtain warmth. Some health professionals promote moderate drinking (1,39),
whereas others caution that extremely high doses (≥1.0 g/kg) inhibit the milk ejection reflex
(40). The present findings, which employed more sensitive measures and controls than research
conducted in the 1960-1970s (15), revealed that lower doses of alcohol have similar effects on
hormonal milieu and lactational performance.
Several explanations, not mutually exclusive, may shed light on why the folklore that alcohol
consumption enhances lactational performance has persisted for centuries. First, because
difficulties with lactational performance are often attributed to stress, alcohol is then prescribed
as an aid to lactation because of its anxiolytic and sedative properties. The present study
revealed that relatively low BACs produce slight, but significant, alterations in feelings of
drunkenness, dysphoria, and sedation. However, paralleling these mood changes are
disruptions in the hormonal milieu that may impair lactational performance. Second, the
lactating mother does not have an immediate means of assessing milk yield or intake. Although
breast-fed infants consumed, on average, 20% less milk after mothers′ consumption of the
Mennella et al. Page 7
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
alcohol (17,31), mothers were apparently unaware of this difference (31). Because milk intake
and the rate of synthesis of human milk vary from feed to feed, a difference of this magnitude
may be difficult for women to perceive, thus making them particularly vulnerable to such
folklore. Third, mothers may be noticing changes in their infants′ behaviors that occur several
hours after and as a consequence of drinking (41). Fourth, because prolactin levels are
correlated with the lactating mother′s perception of the fullness in the breasts (12), alcohol-
induced increases in prolactin may lead mothers to feel that they have more milk, despite the
alcohol-induced decreases in milk yield (31). Such perceptions may explain why the folklore
that alcohol consumption enhances lactational performance has persisted for centuries.
In conclusion, whereas folklore has perpetuated the belief that alcohol is an aid to lactation and
lactating women have sometimes been encouraged to drink low or moderate doses of alcohol
as a way to increase milk production (1,39), the research discussed herein indicates that alcohol
consumption disrupts the two key hormones involved in lactation in the short term; prolactin
levels are enhanced, but oxytocin levels are attenuated during breast stimulation. The long-
term consequences of such disruptions on lactational performance and women′s health (42,
43), in general, remain unknown.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the expert technical assistance of Ms. A. Lorraine Norfleet, M.H.A., B.S.N., B.S., R.N.; the nurses
of the General Research Center at The University of Pennsylvania; and Dr. Heather Collins at the Diabetes Research
Center, University of Pennsylvania.
References
1. Mennella, JA. Alcohol and lactation: the folklore versus the science. In: Auerbach, KG., editor. Current
issues in clinical lactation. Jones and Bartlett Publishers; Boston, MA: 2002. p. 3-10.
2. Krebs, R. Making friends is our business—100 years of Anheuser-Busch. Anheuser-Busch Inc; St.
Louis, MO: 1953.
3. Pryor, K. Nursing your baby. Harper and Row Publishers; New York: 1963. p. 190
4. Blume S, Auerbach KG, Schreiber JR, Falkner F. Beer and the breast-feeding mom. JAMA
1987;258:2126.
5. Grossman ER. Beer, breast-feeding and the wisdom of old wives. JAMA 1988;259:1016. [PubMed:
3339797]
6. De Rosa G, Corsello SM, Ruffilli MP, Della Casa S, Pasargiklian E. Prolactin secretion after beer.
Lancet 1981;2:934. [PubMed: 6117712]
7. Subramanian, MG. Effects of ethanol on lactation. In: Abel, EL., editor. Fetal alcohol syndrome: from
mechanism to prevention. CRC Press Inc.; Boca Raton, FL: 1996. p. 237-247.
8. Heil SH, Subramanian MG. Chronic alcohol exposure: extended observations. Alcohol 2000;21:127–
132. [PubMed: 10963935]
9. Mendelson JH, Mello NK, Ellingboe J. Acute alcohol intake and pituitary gonadal hormones in normal
human females. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1981;218:23–26. [PubMed: 7241380]
10. Soyka M, Gorig E, Naber D. Serum prolactin increase induced by ethanol—a dose-dependent effect
not related to stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1991;16:441–446. [PubMed: 1805295]
11. Howie PW, McNeilly AS, McArdle T, Smart L, Houston M. The relationship between suckling-
induced prolactin response and lactogenesis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1980;50:670–673. [PubMed:
7364925]
12. Cox DB, Owens RA, Hartmann PE. Blood and milk prolactin and the rate of milk synthesis in women.
Exp Physiol 1996;81:1007–1020. [PubMed: 8960706]
13. Lauersen NH, Merkatz IR, Tejani N, Wilson KH, Roberson A, Mann LI, Fuchs F. Inhibition of
premature labor: a multicenter comparison of ritodrine and ethanol. Am J Obstet Gynecol
1977;127:837–845. [PubMed: 851140]
Mennella et al. Page 8
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
14. Fuchs AR, Husslein P, Sumulong L, Micha JP, Dawood MY, Fuchs F. Plasma levels of oxytocin and
13,14-dihydro-15-keto prostaglandin F2 α in preterm labor and the effect of ethanol and ritrodine.
Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;144:753–759. [PubMed: 7148897]
15. Cobo E. Effect of different doses of ethanol on the milk-ejecting reflex in lactating women. Am J
Obstet Gynecol 1973;115:817–821. [PubMed: 4688584]
16. Mennella JA. Short-term effects of maternal alcohol consumption on lactational performance. Alcohol
Clin Exp Res 1998;22:1389–1392. [PubMed: 9802517]
17. Mennella JA, Beauchamp GK. The transfer of alcohol to human milk: effects on flavor and the infant
′s behavior. N Engl J Med 1991;325:981–985. [PubMed: 1886634]
18. Mennella JA, Beauchamp GK. Effects of beer on breast-fed infants. JAMA 1993;269:1637–1638.
[PubMed: 8455295]
19. Bowen-Jones A, Thompson C, Drewett RF. Milk flow and sucking rates during breast-feeding. Dev
Med Child Neurol 1982;24:626–633. [PubMed: 7141119]
20. Mennella JA. Infants′ suckling responses to the flavor of alcohol in mothers′ milk. Alcohol Clin Exp
Res 1997;21:581–585. [PubMed: 9194908]
21. Díaz S, Serón-Ferré M, Cárdenas H, Schiappacasse V, Brandeis A, Croxatto HB. Circadian variation
of basal prolactin, prolactin response to suckling, and length of amenorrhea in nursing women. J Clin
Endocrinol Metab 1989;68:946–955. [PubMed: 2715293]
22. Little RE, Worthington-Roberts B, Mann SL, Uhl CN. Test-retest reliability of diet and drinking
estimates for pregnancy and post partum. Am J Epidemiol 1984;120:794–797. [PubMed: 6496457]
23. Teff KL, Mattes R, Engelman K. Cephalic phase insulin release in normal weight males: verification
and reliability. Am J Physiol 1991;261:E430–E436. [PubMed: 1928335]
24. Widstrom AM, Winberg J, Werner S, Hamberger B, Eneroth P, Uvnas-Moberg K. Suckling in
lactating women stimulates the secretion of insulin and prolactin without concomitant effects on
gastrin, growth hormone, calcitonin, vasopressin or catecholamines. Early Hum Dev 1984;10:115–
122. [PubMed: 6389080]
25. Vuorenkoski V, Wasz-Hockert O, Koivisto E, Lind J. The effect of cry stimulus on the temperature
of the lactating breast of primipara. A thermo-graphic study. Experientia 1969;25:1286–1287.
26. Grayson RH, Halperin JM, Sharma V, Schwartz ST, Koda VH, Newcorn JH. Changes in plasma
prolactin and catecholamine metabolite levels following acute needle stick in children. Psychiatry
Res 1997;69:27–32. [PubMed: 9080542]
27. Holdstock L, Wit H. Individual differences in the biphasic effects of ethanol. Alcohol Clin Exp Res
1988;22:1903–1911. [PubMed: 9884132]
28. O′Connor S, Morzorati S, Christian J, Li TK. Clamping breath alcohol concentration reduces
experimental variance: application to the study of acute tolerance to alcohol and alcohol elimination
rate. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1998;22:202–210. [PubMed: 9514308]
29. Mumenthaler MS, Taylor JL, Yesavage JA. Ethanol pharmacokinetics in white women: nonlinear
model fitting versus zero-order elimination analyses. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2000;24:1353–1362.
[PubMed: 11003200]
30. InnsPMorrisonPJPajoumondKEvaluation of fuel cell alcometer for forensic and pharmacokinetic
purposes. Br J Clin Pharmacol19797439P440PProceedings
31. Mennella JA, Beauchamp GK. Beer, breast feeding and folklore. Dev Psychobiol 1993;26:459–466.
[PubMed: 8293892]
32. Fischman MW, Schuster CR. Cocaine effects in sleep-deprived humans. Psychopharmacology (Berl)
1980;72:1–8. [PubMed: 6780998]
33. Gabriel K, Hoffman C, Glavas M, Weinberg J. The hormonal effects of alcohol use on the mother
and fetus. Alcohol Health Res World 1998;22:170–177. [PubMed: 15706792]
34. Gianoulakis C. Alcohol-seeking behavior: the roles of the hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal axis and
the endogenous opioid system. Alcohol Health Res World 1998;22:202–210. [PubMed: 15706797]
35. Chatterton RT Jr, Hill PD, Aldag JC, Hodges KR, Belknap SM, Zinaman MJ. Relation of plasma
oxytocin and prolactin concentrations to milk production in mothers of preterm infants: influence of
stress. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000;85:3661–3668. [PubMed: 11061519]
Mennella et al. Page 9
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
36. Gimpl G, Fahrenholz F. The oxytocin receptor system: structure, function and regulation. Physiol
Rev 2001;81:629–683. [PubMed: 11274341]
37. Freeman ME, Kanyicska B, Lerant A, Nagy G. Prolactin: structure, function, and regulation of
secretion. Physiol Rev 2000;80:1523–1631. [PubMed: 11015620]
38. De A, Boyadjieva N, Oomizu S, Sarkar DK. Ethanol induces hyper-prolactinemia by increasing
prolactin release and lactotrope growth in female rats. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2002;26:1420–1429.
[PubMed: 12351938]
39. Pepino MY, Mennella JA. Advice given to women living in Argentina about breastfeeding, alcohol
consumption and feeding practices. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2004;16:408–414. [PubMed:
15673483]
40. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs. Transfer of drugs and other chemicals into
human milk. Pediatrics 2001;108:776–789. [PubMed: 11533352]
41. Mennella, JA. Alcohol use during lactation: effects on the mother and breastfeeding infant. In: Watson,
R., editor. Nutrition and alcohol. 2nd ed.. CRC Press; Boca Raton, FL: 2004. p. 377-391.
42. Zumoff B. Biological and endocrinological insights into the possible breast cancer risk from
menopausal estrogen replacement therapy. Steroids 1993;58:196–204. [PubMed: 8395097]
43. Murrell TG. The potential for oxytocin (OT) to prevent breast cancer: a hypothesis. Breast Cancer
Res Treat 1995;35:225–229. [PubMed: 7647345]
Mennella et al. Page 10
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Fig. 1.
Mean (±SEM) plasma oxytocin levels (pg/ml; A), prolactin (ng/ml; B), and cortisol (μg/dl; C) in
17 lactating women at baseline and at varying times after the consumption of a 0.4-g/kg dose
of alcohol in orange juice on one test day (•) and orange juice alone on the other (○). Women
received breast stimulation with a breast pump (hatched bars) 35-51 min after the consumption
of the beverage (time point = 0 min). The inset in each panel depicts mean (±SEM) AUC on
alcohol (■) and control (□) days.
*
, Values that were significantly different from control session
(AUC data) or significantly different from similar time points during the control (plasma levels;
P < 0.05). †, Values within each test session that were significantly different from their
respective baseline values (P < 0.05). Conversions are as follows: oxytocin in picograms per
Mennella et al. Page 11
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
milliliter × 0.80 = oxytocin in picomoles per liter; prolactin in nanograms per milliliter × 43.5
= prolactin in picomoles per liter; and cortisol in micrograms per deciliter × 27.6 = cortisol in
nanomoles per liter.
Mennella et al. Page 12
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Fig. 2.
Mean (±SEM) estimated BAC (•) and raw scores of the ARCI to assess various measures of self-
reported drug effects. The PCAG (▽), the LSD (△), and the Drunk Scale (▲) at baseline and
at various time points after the consumption of a 0.4-g/kg dose of alcohol in 17 lactating women.
The PCAG-ARCI scale provides a measure of sedation; the LSD-ARCI scale reflects dysphoria
and somatic effects; and the Dr-ARCI scale reflects levels of drunkenness. To convert values
for BAC to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.217.
*
, Values that are significantly different
from their respective baseline values (P < 0.05).
Mennella et al. Page 13
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Mennella et al. Page 14
TABLE 1.
Schedule of events
Begin
BVG
End
BVG
Breast pump
stimulation
Time (min) −85 −40 −25 −10 0 10 25 35–51 65 80 95 110 125 140
Blood sampling X X X XXXXXXXXX X X X X X X
BAC X X X X X X X X X X
ARCI mood ratings X X X X
Each subject was tested on 2 d separated by 1 wk. On both test days, subjects consumed a beverage (BVG) at time 0. On one test day, the BVG was a 0.4-
g/kg dose of alcohol in orange juice (alcoholic BVG), whereas on the other test day the BVG was an equal volume of orange juice (control BVG).
Approximately 35 min after drinking the BVG, the women pumped their breasts with an electric breast pump for 16 min (breast stimulation). The symbol
X denotes occurrence of blood sampling, determination of BAC, and completion of ARCI questionnaires to evaluate various mood states before and after
the consumption of the BVG.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Mennella et al. Page 15
TABLE 2.
Correlations among and between oxytocin and prolactin AUCs during breast stimulation and lactational
performance on the control day when lactating women consumed a nonalcoholic beverage and the alcohol day
when they comsumed a 0.4-g/kg dose of alcohol
Control day Alcohol day
AUC Prolactin
Milk
ejection
latency
(sec)
Milk production (ml) AUC oxytocin AUC prolactin
Milk
ejection
latency
(sec)
Milk production (ml)
Control day
AUC oxytocin 0.01 −0.12 0.12 0.80 −0.02 0.23 −0.07
P = 0.96 P = 0.63 P = 0.65 P < 0.01 P = 0.93 P = 0.38 P = 0.78
AUC prolactin 0.17 −0.11 −0.19 0.28 −0.14 −0.11
P = 0.52 P = 0.67 P = 0.46 P = 0.28 P = 0.58 P = 0.69
Milk ejection
latency (sec)
0.08 −0.11 0.11 0.42 0.13
P = 0.75 P = 0.67 P = 0.66 P = 0.91 P = 0.61
Milk production (ml) 0.21 −0.12 −0.14 0.72
P = 0.41 P = 0.65 P = 0.59 P < 0.01
Alcohol day
AUC oxytocin −0.06 −0.05 0.23
P = 0.81 P = 0.86 P = 0.38
AUC prolactin 0.49 0.22
P =
0.045
P = 0.40
Milk ejection
latency (sec)
−0.32
P = 0.21
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 January 25.
