A critique published in the Journal of Perinatology raises concerns about how nutritional confounding and reporting gaps limited conclusions from the JASMINE trial. B.C. King and co-authors highlight the challenge of separating intervention effects from differences in nutritional circumstances among participants. For perinatal studies that rely on complex behavioral or nutritional exposures, the commentary underscores how incomplete measurement and reporting can alter effect estimates even when the overall study design appears plausible. The piece will likely prompt follow-up scrutiny by researchers and clinicians interpreting JASMINE, and it may influence how subsequent trials handle data completeness, exposure documentation, and adjustment strategies.