be bad for

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "be bad for" is correct and usable in written English. You can use it to indicate that something has a negative impact or effect on someone or something. Example: "Eating too much sugar can be bad for your health." Alternative expressions include "harmful to" and "detrimental to."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Academia

Wiki

Formal & Business

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

That would be bad for the economy.

The New York Times

It could also be bad for business.

The New Yorker

It may be bad for business, too.

The Economist

This would be bad for France.

The Economist

Oxygen seems to be bad for them.

The New York Times

It will be bad for glottal stops.

Independent

That might be bad for interpreters.

The Economist

Will that be bad for our economy?

The New York Times

Can empathy be bad for intergroup interactions?

University of California, Berkeley

« Can empathy be bad for intergroup interactions?

University of California, Berkeley

That can't be bad for America.

Harvard University

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use the phrase with an abstract noun to describe broad impacts, such as "be bad for the economy" or "be bad for business".

Common error

Avoid using "bad for" when you mean a lack of skill or ability. Use "bad at" for skills (e.g. "he is bad at math") and save "bad for" to describe a negative effect on a person or thing (e.g. "sugar is bad for you").

Linguistic Context

The phrase "be bad for" functions as a verb phrase composed of the copula verb "to be", the adjective "bad" and the preposition "for". According to Ludwig AI, it serves to link a subject to a negative consequence or condition affecting the object of the preposition.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

55%

Academia

25%

Formal & Business

15%

Less common in

Wiki

3%

Science

1%

Social Media

1%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "be bad for" is a versatile and standard English expression used to denote a negative effect. Ludwig AI indicates that it is highly frequent in authoritative sources ranging from The New York Times to Harvard University, proving its reliability across various writing styles. While it is perfectly correct in almost any context, writers seeking a more elevated or precise tone might consider alternatives like "detrimental to" or "harmful to". The most important distinction to maintain is between this phrase and "bad at", which refers to skill rather than impact. Overall, it remains a fundamental tool for expressing unfavorable outcomes in both neutral and professional writing.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

harmful to

More direct and slightly more formal than the original phrase

detrimental to

Adds a formal or academic tone often used in business or research contexts

deleterious to

A high-register term typically used in scientific or medical writing

damaging to

Focuses on the resulting physical or reputational destruction

unhealthy for

Specifies that the negative impact is related to physical or mental well-being

adverse for

Often used to describe unfavorable conditions or results

counterproductive for

Specifically suggests that an action hinders the achievement of a goal

prejudicial to

Common in legal or professional contexts to indicate harm to interests or rights

toxic to

A stronger, more emotive way to describe a severely negative impact

ill-suited for

Suggests a lack of compatibility rather than direct harm

FAQs

What can I say instead of "be bad for"?

Depending on your context, you can use more precise alternatives like "harmful to", "detrimental to" or "unhealthy for".

Which is correct, "bad for" or "bad at"?

Both are correct but have different meanings. Use "bad for" to indicate a negative impact on something and "bad at" to describe a lack of proficiency in an activity.

Is "be bad for" formal enough for an essay?

While correct, in academic writing it is often better to use more specific verbs like "undermine" or more formal adjectives like "deleterious to".

What is the difference between "be bad for" and "be negative for"?

The phrase "be negative for" is often used in financial or scientific reporting to describe a specific type of outcome or trend, while "be bad for" is more general and common in everyday language.