|
Image by serhii_bobyk via Magnific
Welcome to our bumper October newsletter, the contents of which are as follows.
|
|
|
News
Infant milk news
Baby Feeding Law Group UK news
Forthcoming
Happy reading!
|
|
|
New paper: Infant Formula Affordability Negatively Impacts Parental Wellbeing, Financial Security and Safe Feeding Practices in the UK
|
|
|
This is the first paper from a collaborative study we supported, led by Professor Amy Brown at Swansea University, intended to provide some much-needed evidence on the harmful impacts of high formula prices on families in the UK.
Surveys were undertaken with 261 parents of babies, struggling with the high cost of formula, and 137 professionals/volunteers working in infant feeding, parenting and food insecurity support, and additional interviews were undertaken with 20 and 21 parents and professionals respectively. Data were collected between March and August 2025.
Key findings:
1. Significant impact on parental wellbeing
- Almost all participants reported that formula costs negatively affected parents' mental health, physical health, relationships and overall wellbeing. Parents described feelings of anxiety, shame, stress, sadness and guilt, particularly when using formula after breastfeeding difficulties.
One survey respondent said: ‘I cry all the time now. I'm meant to be the one who looks after her and protects her and I'm failing her all because I couldn't get feeding right and now can't afford her milk properly’. (Mother, age 30–34, Black African, baby 3 months, mixed feeding)
Another said: ‘I hope my baby never knows we struggled and that it doesn't leave an impact on her’. (Mother, age 19–24, White British, baby 6 months, exclusive formula)
2. Financial hardship and sacrifices
- To afford formula, many families cut back on their own food intake, reduced heating and other essentials, took on debt, returned to work earlier than planned and relied on support from family, charities or food banks.
- Critically, the study found that affordability problems were not limited to the lowest-income households; only a third of struggling parents were in receipt of Healthy Start and many had two working parents. Many families struggling with the cost of formula did not qualify for benefits despite facing severe financial pressures from childcare costs, housing costs and the wider cost-of-living crisis.
One study participant said: ‘we are now in credit card debt and have missed bill payments’
3. Unsafe infant feeding practices
- More than a third (39.1%) of parents reported using at least one unsafe feeding practice because of formula costs, such as using leftover formula later (28.7%), reducing sterilisation practices (21.5%) and watering down formula feeds (13.8%). Many parents knew these practices were not recommended but felt they had few alternatives.
One survey respondent said: ‘I've had to use less powder just to be able to, you know, get to a new week, so that I can plan for a new one…The only thing I've done during difficult times is I try to use less powder, and which is really bad…’. (Marie, Mother, aged 25–34, Black, baby 12 months, mixed feeding)
4. Alternative ways of obtaining formula
- Parents reported sourcing formula through social media marketplaces (46%) and purchasing products marketed for older babies instead of infant formula (45.2%). These approaches raised concerns about product safety and suitability.
5. Breastfeeding and formula affordability are linked
- The research highlighted that many mothers wanted to breastfeed but were unable to continue because of inadequate support and they felt "doubly let down" by both a lack of breastfeeding support and the subsequent high cost of formula feeding. Some mothers stopped breastfeeding because they worried their diets were insufficient.
|
|
Conclusions and recommendations: The high cost of infant formula is a social justice issue because infant formula is an essential product for non-breastfed and partially breastfed babies, rather than a discretionary purchase. It is also a product yielding large profits for manufacturers and retailers. We call for:
- Stronger regulations on the marketing of formula milks (especially follow-on formula and growing up/toddler milks which are discretionary products used to cross promote infant formula)
- Infant formula price regulation
- Enhanced emergency pathways for infant feeding support (including but not limited to formula provision)
- Improved access to financial support (including through expanding eligibility for Healthy Start - this is important for supporting families struggling to afford infant formula and to support women who are breastfeeding, noting many mothers mixed feed)
- Enhanced breastfeeding support
See below for our our latest infant milk costs and trend reports and asks of Government, which are informed by this study.
|
|
|
New paper: Mothers’ experiences of formula feeding support in the UK
|
|
A new qualitative systematic review by James and colleagues explores mothers’ experiences of receiving support when formula feeding in the UK and Ireland. The findings are particularly important given the widespread use of infant formula. The 2024 Infant Feeding Survey for England found that, when mothers left hospital, 22% were feeding their baby only infant formula and a further 25% were combining breast milk and infant formula.
The authors define support as emotional, informational and practical assistance. They highlight that understanding mothers’ experiences is important for shaping guidance, services and policies that enable families to formula feed safely and confidently.
The review identified ten research papers involving first-time and experienced mothers with babies under 12 months old. Participants included mothers who exclusively formula fed and those who combined formula feeding with breastfeeding. Most participants were White, although they represented a range of ages and socioeconomic backgrounds.
The researchers identified three overarching themes:
- Limited support for formula feeding
- Withheld or conflicting support from healthcare professionals
- The impact on mothers’ emotional health and wellbeing
Limited information and practical support
Overall, mothers described receiving insufficient support with formula feeding and often feeling that they had to work things out for themselves. Some mothers who had intended to breastfeed felt particularly unprepared when they needed to introduce formula.
Mothers reported uncertainty about choosing an infant formula, switching between brands, preparing feeds safely, understanding how much milk to offer and deciding whether follow-on formula was needed. Where professional support was unavailable, some turned to family, friends, online sources, trial and error, or formula-company advertising for information.
Withheld or conflicting professional advice
Mothers commonly perceived that healthcare professionals were unwilling or unable to provide information about formula feeding. Some felt marginalised or believed that professionals were not permitted to discuss formula feeding because of the emphasis placed on breastfeeding.
Advice also varied between professionals, creating further confusion and uncertainty. This is not consistent with current guidance, which recommends that all parents receive evidence-based, non-judgemental support for their chosen feeding method.
The authors recognise that these experiences take place within the wider context of stretched maternity services. They also emphasise that improving breastfeeding support must remain a priority: insufficient breastfeeding support can increase the likelihood that families will need to introduce formula, sometimes unexpectedly and before they feel prepared to do so.
Infant feeding decisions are shaped by a complex combination of health services, family and social networks, wider community support and socioeconomic circumstances. Supporting breastfeeding and ensuring that families who use formula receive safe, independent information should therefore be viewed as complementary parts of good infant-feeding care, rather than competing priorities.
The impact on mothers’ emotional wellbeing
Inadequate support affected mothers’ emotional health as well as their confidence in feeding their babies. Mothers described anxiety, isolation, shame and feelings of inadequacy. Stigma surrounding formula feeding was commonly reported, and some women felt inferior to mothers who breastfed or under pressure to repeatedly justify their feeding decisions.
The authors acknowledge that their findings support previous research showing that mothers who formula feed often experience guilt, stigma, confusion and a sense of failure, as well as feeling compelled to defend their decisions. This highlights the persistent need for compassionate, woman-centred support from healthcare professionals.
What needs to change?
The authors conclude that formula feeding support should be recognised as an essential part of perinatal care. Mothers need clear, consistent and evidence-based information, alongside empathetic and non-judgemental practical and emotional support.
They recommend further research to understand healthcare professionals’ experiences of providing formula feeding support, including their awareness of current guidance and any barriers to putting it into practice. They also call for training that gives professionals the knowledge and confidence to discuss formula feeding in a way that meets women’s informational needs while remaining aligned with NICE guidance and Unicef UK Baby Friendly principles.
One of First Steps Nutrition Trust’s key aims is to provide conflict-of-interest-free information about infant milks marketed in the UK and to promote stronger regulation and controls on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes. Our Infant Milk Info website is a key resource for healthcare professionals seeking independent information about infant milks.
We also have some exciting news about further resources and training for professionals supporting families who use formula. Read our update below.
The next news piece, about Unicef UK’s policy paper and asks on infant feeding education is also relevant to the recommendations from this study.
|
|
|
New policy paper: Unicef UK Policy Paper on Infant Feeding Education in England
|
|
|
Image credit: Unicef UK Baby Friendly Initiative
|
|
During mid-September 2026, the Unicef UK Baby Friendly Initiative shared a new Policy Paper on Infant Feeding Education in England. This policy paper starts by acknowledging that there is currently no nationally responsible role for establishing competency frameworks or mandated training requirements, despite guidance on the need for a skilled multiagency workforce to deliver integrated services. Rather, training and workforce development are currently determined locally, which is difficult without an agreed national governance structure or a national framework to guide infant feeding education.
The paper describes the current available frameworks related to infant feeding available in England, including the Best Start Family Hubs and Health Babies Guidance for Local Authorities (2025-2029) and the Unicef UK Baby Friendly Initiative programme and standards. The infant feeding workforce is described, with an explanation of the main types of roles within public services with responsibility for infant feeding education. However, this workforce, which has an important role in supporting families and improving health outcomes, is fragile and often undervalued. The policy paper shares insights from a recent consultation on the Baby Friendly standards, that was conducted with stakeholders within the infant feeding workforce.
This paper calls for:
- A coordinated and adequately resourced national approach to infant feeding education in the healthcare workforce.
- The integration of role-relevant lactation and infant feeding knowledge and skills into higher education programmes for all healthcare professionals who support families in the perinatal period.
- Equitable access to specialist clinical lactation training for infant feeding specialists and practitioners.
- Clear career development and progression pathways for the infant feeding workforce.
The paper makes 3 main recommendations to the UK Government:
- Develop a National Infant Feeding Skills and Knowledge Framework.
- Invest in specialist training and continued professional development (CPD) in the infant feeding workforce.
- Embed infant feeding education across the healthcare workforce which supports families in the perinatal period.
In conclusion, this policy paper recommends a coordinated national approach to infant feeding education and advises increased recognition of infant feeding and lactation care as a specialist area of practice.
|
|
There has been a lot of news about commercial baby and toddler foods in recent months, as we hit the one-year anniversary of the Government publication of the voluntary industry baby food guidelines.
This blog by colleagues in the Commercial Baby Food Review provides a snapshot of some of the reported findings of two recent progress assessments as well as recent research including our new study summarised below. One assessment was done by Which? (and focused just on sugar/salt) and the other by a company called Alba Health (covering sugar/salt and some labelling). The blog also summarises what we are seeking to do through the Commercial Baby Food Review, including systematically assessing the state of the retail offer against the voluntary guidelines and the WHO Europe Nutrient Promotion and Profile Model in August 2025 vs post February 2027, which is the deadline Government have given to industry to comply.
|
|
|
Image credit: Impact on Urban Health
|
|
|
The two assessments (and a quick glance down any supermarket baby aisle) suggest limited movement by the market to comply with the voluntary industry guidelines, especially with regard to the claims and statements being used on product labels. This is despite lots of positive messaging from companies and retailers about the changes they are making. In some ways this is not surprising. The deadline for compliance is February 2027, and arguably, there is little incentive (or financial gain) to be had for complying before then. Added to which the guidelines recommendations on labelling are in places unclear and open to interpretation (see below, especially the third bullet).
|
|
The trade body for the baby food industry (the BSNA) reacted to the Alba Health report with the following comment: “Parents can feel confident that members are on track to meet the guidance, offering convenient, nutritious choices that support the realities of modern family life.”
Improvements in the nutrition composition of commercial baby and toddler foods and a clamp down on their misleading marketing are both long overdue, and compliance with the voluntary guidelines will undoubtedly be a good thing for children’s health. It is also likely to require a mandatory approach, with much clearer enforceable provisions, which is what the Commercial Baby Food Review is calling for.
At the same time, the NHS advises that shop-bought baby foods should not be relied on. This advice is not just about the nutrition composition of the products but also their taste and texture. Past Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition and Public Health England reports both state: “home-prepared foods are generally recommended to help introduce infants and young children to a range of appropriate flavours and textures”.
|
|
It’s important to support parents and build their confidence by reminding them that home-preparation of foods for babies and toddlers does not have to be complicated, expensive or time consuming (despite what baby food company marketing may imply). This aligns with NICE guidelines on Maternal and Child Nutrition, which recommend that parents are told: The benefits of homemade foods (without adding sugar, salt or sweetening agents), including nutrition, taste and texture, and that commercial foods and drinks are not needed to meet nutritional requirements.
First Steps Nutrition Trust offers a range of FREE, practical ‘eating well’ guides on feeding babies and toddlers, which can be accessed here on our website.
|
|
|
New paper: Texture and nutrient content of commercial baby foods supplied in spouted pouches, compared to other packaging
|
|
This new paper we supported was published in August and is the result of a collaboration led by Ada Garcia and colleagues at the University of Glasgow. The study presents novel findings on the texture of ‘wet’ commercial baby foods, in a context where this important feature of commercial baby foods has not been studied before.
Aims: The aims of the study were to measure the texture and nutrient content of ready-made wet commercial baby food (CBF) in spouted pouches, compared with other packaging, to evaluate their adequacy as complementary foods.
Design: The design was a cross-sectional survey measuring all wet CBF available in six UK supermarkets using the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative methodology, categorising them as liquids, purées or foods requiring any mastication. Nutrient content and age recommendations were transcribed from product packaging. Minimum desired energy, protein and maximal sugar content per 100 g were categorised in comparisons to breastmilk (sugar content ≤7 g/protein ≥1.2 g/energy density >70 kcal).
Results: Spouted pouches were the most common packaging type, representing 60% of the 298 evaluated products. 70% of them were targeted at babies ≤6 months.
- Texture: A key finding was that half (49%) were liquid, compared with 7% for products in other packaging like jars and trays.
- Nutrition: From a nutrition perspective, most of the baby foods contained less energy than breastmilk, and the pouches contained less protein and more sugar that breastmilk. Only 8% of the pouches were a purée or food that was more energy and protein dense than breast milk, but not sweeter, while 29% met none of these criteria.
Both texture and nutrition matters. Texture matters because babies need to learn how to move, chew and manage increasingly solid foods. A spout makes it easy to suck down a drink or a smooth food with very little oral processing.
Conclusions and recommendations: Many baby ‘foods’ marketed as first foods and packaged in spouted pouches are more like sweet drinks than foods, and very few meet the desired characteristics for complementary foods.
We recommended reconsideration of how these products are categorised and labelled to make clear which products are foods and which are drinks, to discourage the use of pouches and to enable parents to make informed choices in line with public health recommendations for feeding infants and young children.
|
|
|
Image credit: The Independent
|
|
The paper got good media coverage, for example this article in the Independent quoting our Director Vicky:
"The NHS advises parents not to give babies fruit drinks and smoothies because their high sugar and acid content can cause tooth decay. And yet, right now, supermarkets and pharmacies are full of fruit-based baby ‘food’ pouches marketed for use from four months and six months of age as ‘first foods’, when our research shows they are actually often more like fruit drinks or smoothies. [Unnecessary drinks displace breastmilk and infant formula and the nutrition (and for breastmilk, health benefits) they provide]. Parents are being misled in to believing that these are healthy and appropriate choices for their babies.
The Government have given the baby food industry until February 2027 to comply with new voluntary baby food guidelines. A quick glance at the shelves and online suggests slow progress and undoubtedly a mandatory approach would be preferable.
Stronger regulations on the composition, marketing and labelling of commercial baby and toddler foods and drinks should be based on the latest evidence, to ensure maximum protection for infant and young child health."
|
|
|
New paper: Warning Labels for Nonnutritive Sweeteners: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Chilean Parents
|
|
This new study by Campos and colleagues, examined whether front-of-pack warning labels for nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS) helped parents identify sweetener-containing foods and influence what they choose for their children. Evidence on the effectiveness of NNS warning labels on consumer behaviour is limited. The research was conducted in Chile, where (much like in the UK) food manufacturers have increasingly replaced sugar with NNS following the introduction of sugar warning labels.
Study design: 3,523 Chilean parents of children aged 2-14 years participated in an online randomized controlled trial. Parents were randomly assigned to one of three groups:
- No NNS label (control)
- Child-focused warning label: "Contains non-nutritive sweeteners, avoid consumption among children"
- Disclosure label: "Contains non-nutritive sweeteners"
Parents were shown sets of 4 drinks (see below), yoghurts and cereals containing sugar, NNS, both, or neither, and asked to identify and select products for their child as well as reporting on their perceptions of the products.
|
|
Main findings:
1. Both warning labels helped parents identify products containing sweeteners - improving recognition by 67-69 percentage points compared with the control group.
2. Both warning labels reduced the likelihood of parents selecting NNS-containing products - with reductions ranging from 22 to 35 percentage points.
3. Parents chose unsweetened products, with no sugar or NNS, instead. Discouraging NNS use did not increase selection of sugar-sweetened products. This is important as it addresses a common concern about unintended consequences.
4. The child-focused warning label had stronger effects, generating higher perceived effectiveness, lower perceptions that NNS products were healthy, and stronger intentions among parents to limit children's NNS intake.
Conclusions: The authors conclude that NNS warning labels can successfully improve consumer understanding of NNS content and encourage selection of products without added sweeteners, without driving parents toward higher-sugar alternatives. NNS warning labels, especially one with a child-focused warning, have the potential to reduce children's exposure to products containing NNS.
Why is this relevant to the UK? Our Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) recommends that intake of NNS be minimised. For younger children, it recommends:
- not giving them drinks sweetened with sugar or NSS
- giving them unsweetened food (not sweetened with either sugar or NSS)
And yet more and more drinks and foods contain NNS in place of sugar. It shows that front of pack NNS warning labels could help parents make more informed choices when they are shopping, so that their feeding practices are in line SACN’s advice. In the meantime, the relevant public-facing advice on NHS webpages suggests the most practical approach for parents to minimise NNS intakes of their babies and young children is to avoid any diet or reduced-sugar drinks. The main drinks up to 5 years of age should be breastmilk, water and plain milk (whole or semi-skimmed) (with water introduced from 6 months of age, and if used, plain milk introduced from 12 months of age).
|
|
|
New guidelines: New CMO advice and infographics on physical activity
|
|
The Chief Medical Officer published updated infographics on physical activity across the life course earlier this month. The updates have primarily involved a refresh of the evidence, not a major change in the recommended activity targets. The advice gives greater prominence to the messages that every movement counts, strength and balance matter throughout life, sitting less is important, and even small increases in physical activity deliver meaningful health benefits.
Below are the infographics for 0-5s, pregnant and post-partum women. You can access them from the DHSC Campaigns and Resource Centre here.
|
|
|
Use these infographics alongside our FREE Eating Well guides, which include “Eating Well: The first year”, “Eating Well for a Healthy Pregnancy” and “Eating Well for New Mums.
|
|
|
All 13 of our Eating Well guides can be accessed here.
|
|
|
Sustain’s Children’s Food Awards 2027
|
|
The second annual Children’s Food Awards opened for nominations on Monday 28 September and once again we’re partnering on an early years nutrition award:
Yummy award: Best campaign or initiative for early years nutrition
|
|
We’re celebrating the heroes (and villains!) of children’s food. Which organisations or people do you know who have gone above and beyond to make a difference to the food mums, babies and young children eat, or done outstanding work supporting them to eat well? We’re encouraging nominations for the Early Years’ Nutrition category and would love to see inspiring examples of work from across our network. Get nominating now ahead of the deadline on 8 November, and check out all the other exciting award categories too!
The award criteria are:
- Outstanding organisations, campaigns or programmes with no commercial interests.
- Their work must be making a meaningful difference to pregnant women, breastfeeding women/new mums and/or babies and young children.
- This can include leading campaigns or initiatives, or work to influence local, regional and national policy.
- Must recognise work within the last two years (2025 & 2026).
- Work must have taken place in the UK.
There are also two yucky awards which you can make nominations for related to baby and toddler formulas, foods, companies or any other products or companies you find particularly objectionable.
Yucky award: Most misleading children’s food product
Yucky award: Children’s Food Commercial Villain
The deadline for nomination is 8 November. Find out more here.
|
|
|
Latest cost and trends reports: The rising cost of infant formula in the UK
|
|
We have updated our report Cost of infant milks in the UK with data collected in August 2026. This report is for use by health workers supporting families using formula (see more on this in the next news piece).
We have used this data to update our trends report: Trends in unit costs over time and between brands of infant milks in the UK: March 2021 to August 2026.
These two reports, along with the findings of our collaborative research, inform our latest recommendations to Government. Key findings informing these recommendations are:
- The average price of a standard tin of first infant formula rose to £13.15 in August 2026 from £12.45 in May 2026 and £11.99 in May 2025.
- This is due to a £1 increase in the price of Aptamil First Infant Milk (the UK’s largest infant formula brand, accounting for 30–40% of sales by value) and the discontinuation of Bonya First Infant Milk (previously the least expensive branded first infant formula available)
- The 10% rise in Healthy Start has not increased the availability of affordable formula. For a 10-week-old baby fed only formula, the allowance covers just one product: Aldi’s Mamia First Infant Milk, which has limited availability.
Rising infant formula prices come amid rising food prices and renewed food insecurity. Families on lower incomes are disproportionately affected by high infant formula costs as they are more likely to use formula milk and are exposed to marketing that encourage parents to purchase higher-priced products.
Our collaborative research shared above shows a clear pathway from poor affordability to unsafe feeding practices and potential risks to infant health. Research involving 261 parents who were struggling to afford formula, showed that 86.6% reported an impact on their mental health and 39.1% reported at least one unsafe feeding practice. Parents described difficult choices, including going without meals or heating and taking on debt to buy formula.
In February 2025, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) made 11 recommendations intended to improve competition in the formula milks market, reduce the influence of branding and help parents make better informed, lower-cost choices. In its July 2026 Annual Report, the CMA rated both the Government’s response to its infant formula recommendations and their implementation as Amber, describing progress as limited. Stronger action is therefore needed on both formula pricing and marketing, alongside measures to ensure that every family who needs infant formula can reliably access an affordable product.
Our call on the Government to urgently act on infant formula ability by:
- Urgently assessing the risks, design and implementation of Government-led price controls while monitoring infant formula price changes
- Prioritising actions to strengthen and enforce marketing restrictions
- Strengthening the Healthy Start scheme
- Embedding breastfeeding and infant feeding support as a core component of maternal and child health policy, and recognising breastfeeding as the safest and most resilient method of infant feeding
Our updated policy infographics to accompany the recommendations to Government report is here:
|
|
|
New: Key messages for health workers supporting families struggling with the cost of infant formula
|
|
We have produced this new resource for health workers, bringing together findings from our August 2026 infant milk price monitoring and our collaborative research.
It can be used alongside our report Cost of infant milks in the UK and the accompanying infographic on the lowest cost infant milks.
|
|
The resource offers practical ways to discuss costs, identify urgent need and support families without judgement, and in line with NICE guidelines and the Code/ the Baby Friendly Initiative.
It highlights that infant formula affordability should be discussed routinely and without judgement. Families may not volunteer that they are struggling, and some are responding to high prices in ways that can increase risk.
We encourage health workers to;
- Ask about affordability with all families who use formula; financial pressure may be hidden.
- Remind families that:
- For healthy babies under one who are not fully breasted, first infant formula (first infant milk) is the only formula milk needed.
- More expensive first infant milks are not nutritionally better. Switching brand can sustainably reduce costs.
- Follow-on formula is not a reliable way to save money and offers no nutritional advantage over first infant milks.
- ‘Specialised’ formulas (anti-reflux and lactose free) should be used only with appropriate clinical advice and supervision. Comfort milks and hungry baby milks lack evidence of effectiveness and should not be recommended.
- Explore unsafe preparation, storage or sourcing practices sensitively and offer practical support offered.
The resource for health workers can be downloaded here.
|
|
|
Webinar and new training for professionals supporting families who use formula
|
|
We’re hosting a free webinar to introduce healthcare professionals to Infant Milk Info, our independent, conflict-of-interest-free resource on infant milks marketed for babies from birth to 12 months in the UK. The website helps professionals support families who use formula, in ways consistent with the Code / the Baby Friendly Initiative.
It includes information on types of infant milk and individual products, their nutritional composition and cost, marketing regulations, and common questions about feeding, health, ingredients and safety. Infographics and webinars also offer practical support for conversations with families.
The webinar will take place on 11 November at 1pm, replacing the session originally scheduled for 7 October. We’ll share booking details nearer the time.
We are also excited to announce that First Steps Nutrition Trust has been working with the Breastfeeding Network over recent months to develop new online training for professionals supporting families who use formula, whether exclusively or alongside breastfeeding.
The course draws on clinical and public health guidance, the latest research and practical information to help professionals provide safe, consistent and compassionate support. It is currently being externally reviewed by experts and will launch in November.
Watch this space for further information.
|
|
|
For infant milk information please visit our website www.infantmilkinfo.org. If you can’t find what you’re looking for please email rachel@firststepsnutrition.org
|
|
Baby Feeding Law Group UK news
|
|
|
New editorial: Infant Formula Marketing: Lessons From Recent Litigation
|
|
This new editorial was published in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Allergy on 23 September and is written by Dr Bob Boyle and Gerard Hastings. It examines a series of US legal cases in 2024, 2025 and 2026 involving infant formula manufacturers and their marketing. It highlights the tension that exists between the formula industry's desire to maximise infant formula sales and profits, and society's desire to optimise the health and well-being of our most vulnerable members. It shows the central role of misleading marketing practices and the conflicts of interest that arise when formula companies sponsor healthcare professional associations, conferences and training, whether allergy related, or otherwise.
The first case covered is a class action case involving Gerber (formerly owned by Nestlé), in which plaintiffs alleged that the company ‘engaged in a pattern of false, deceptive, and unfair business practices through advertising and marketing representations’. Specifically, Gerber falsely marketed a partially hydrolysed formula as the "first and only formula that reduces the risk that infants will develop allergies." The company denied the allegations, but the case raises wider questions about how allergy-related claims have been used to market infant formula. Evidence underpinning the allergy-prevention claims on hydrolysed formula is weak, based on poor-quality evidence, retracted or fraudulent research and incomplete reporting of trial findings. The claims have been pushed through industry-funded educational activities aimed at healthcare professionals, highlighting how formula industry funded healthcare professional education has the potential to over-emphasise unreliable scientific findings.
Another case involved a lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories concerning necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), a serious bowel disease affecting mainly premature infants and low-birth weight infants. A Missouri jury awarded substantial damages after finding that warnings about NEC risks associated with their preterm formula products were inadequate. While pre-term formulas represent a small market segment with relatively low volume sales, industry documents reveal the value placed on marketing of these products to secure future sales of other branded products - the ‘First bottle fed’ approach (as the figure below illustrates). It is important for health workers supporting families with infant feeding to be aware of this approach given the increasing promotion of early, sustained cow's milk formula (or amino-acid formula) for preventing cow's milk allergy. This new concept is not supported by clinical trial evidence.
|
|
|
Figure: Materials cited in the 2024 NEC case against Abbott (from the editorial)
|
|
A key allegation in the Abbott case is that health risks were not communicated effectively. The editorial highlights similar concerns about the lack of communication that appears to exist around the potential health harms of almost all of the allergy specialist formulas which contain non-lactose free/added sugars (sucrose, fructose and glucose syrups) as well as maltodextrins, linked to dental caries and early-onset obesity. Recommendations for sugary plant-based drinks in the case of allergy (or for other reasons) are also concerning where associated risks are not communicated.
The profound health consequences of allegedly misleading formula marketing in these cases supports the ongoing relevance of the World Health Organization recommendation that ‘sponsorship of healthcare professional and scientific meetings by companies selling foods for infants and young children should not be allowed’.
Key learning points include:
- Allergy initiatives which promote early, sustained formula use may have been influenced by formula company marketing objectives related to brand loyalty.
- Healthcare professionals should consider health risks associated with formula products which they recommend, as well as any potential health benefits.
- Healthcare professionals should avoid industry-funded education [just one example below].
- Healthcare professional organisations that accept funding from formula companies may inadvertently become channels for marketing messages which can harm babies and young children.
|
|
|
Figure: One example of formula company HCP education currently available in the UK (from First Steps Nutrition Trust). Image credit: Kendamil
|
|
|
New paper: Digital Marketing Tactics, Non‐Compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and Legal Breaches of Code‐Based Legislation by the Commercial Milk Formula Industry in Central America and the Caribbean
|
|
In June 2026, Mazariegos and colleagues published this paper documenting digital marketing of commercial milk formula (CMF) and violations of the Code and national legislation in three countries in Central America and the Caribbean.The Dominican Republic and Guatemala are upper-middle-income countries and Panama is a high-income country. All three countries have national legislation that is moderately aligned with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions (hereafter, the Code), scoring 53 (Guatemala), 64 (Panama) and 70 (the Dominican Republic) out of 100 on the Global Code Status report.
Researchers applied the WHO CLICK monitoring framework which was specifically developed to support Member States in monitoring digital marketing of unhealthy products to children. Over approximately 6 months (November 2023 to May 2024), researchers manually monitored CMF brand websites and official social media accounts to document promotional practices and violations of the Code and national legislation. Growing-up milks (GUM) accounted for 98.4% of promoted products and were often used in cross-promotion with infant formula. The paper describes the various types of marketing strategies used by CMF manufacturers in the 3 countries. The most frequent breaches involved labelling requirements and examples of violations included idealising CMF use, undermining breastfeeding, portraying formula as superior or equivalent to breastmilk, and the omission of mandatory warnings. The main regulatory gaps related to GUMs, cross‐promotion strategies, and health and nutrition claims. The research demonstrated that national legislation is not adequately regulating the active and sophisticated ecosystem of CMF promotion through digital marketing, which remains the dominant marketing channel for CMF in these 3 countries.
This research clearly illustrates how CMF manufacturers are able to continue aggressively marketing all CMF from birth to 36 months, even when national Code-related legislation exists, and demonstrates that when national legislation is only moderately aligned with the Code, CMF marketing remains pervasive, and similar tactics are used by manufacturers across countries and regions. The authors documented the loophole and regulatory gap between national legislation and the Code, which ranges from 21.7% in Panama to 47.1% in Guatemala.
The findings that violations of the Code and national legislation remain widespread are similar to the current situation in the UK, where regulatory gaps allow for evolving marketing tactics that continue to reach parents, caregivers and healthcare professionals.
The recommendations from this research are entirely relevant to the UK, including “the urgent need to adapt regulatory frameworks, enforcement mechanisms, and monitoring systems to protect breastfeeding, safeguard the first food system, and ensure safe and ethical digital environments for parents and children”.
The authors provide 5 policy recommendations which have global relevance:
- Countries should urgently revise and expand national legislation to fully incorporate all Code provisions and WHA resolutions, explicitly covering all products intended for children under 36 months, nutritional and health claims, and all communication channels, including digital.
- Enforcement mechanisms must be strengthened. This includes defining sanctions, clarifying mandates across government institutions, and building capacity among regulatory bodies.
- Investments are needed in real‐time digital surveillance tools to detect non‐compliant marketing practices. Countries like Vietnam, Mexico, and Argentina have begun using artificial intelligence driven monitoring to auto-detect CMF adverts and analyse content, greatly enhancing the reach and speed of monitoring.
- It is essential to foster coordinated action between health authorities, communication regulators, consumer protection agencies, competition authorities, civil society organizations, and digital platforms. Collaborative approaches can help detect and prevent marketing, while narrowing the gap between the Code and national laws. Strengthening the technical, human, and legal capacity of regulators is critical to ensure effective enforcement. This can include developing digital monitoring protocols and improved legal responses.
- Governments and regional bodies should establish cooperation mechanisms to address cross‐border digital marketing strategies, including harmonizing legal frameworks between countries in regions, shared digital monitoring systems for content targeting multinational audiences, and formalizing interinstitutional agreements to exchange alerts, evidence, and enforcement actions.
|
|
|
All Party Parliamentary Group on Infant Feeding and Inequalities, hybrid, 4 November
|
|
The next meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Infant Feeding and Inequalities will take place on Wednesday 4 November, from 13:00 to 14:30. As always, there is a hybrid option, with spaces in the room allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. The in-person meeting will be in Room N, Portcullis House, with online attendance via Microsoft Teams). You need to RSVP whether you attend in-person or online, by sending an email to secretariat@infantfeedingappg.co.uk
Speakers are currently being confirmed and there will be an update on the work of the APPG. If you would like to be added to the APPG IFI mailing list, please send an email request to the new email address for the APPG IFI Secretariat: secretariat@infantfeedingappg.co.uk
|
|
|
The Lactation Consultants of Great Britain Annual Conference, online, 5 November
|
|
The theme of this conference is “Practice, People, Partnership”.
Leading experts in their fields have been invited to present evidence-based education that explores and addresses the changing world of lactation and breastfeeding, to meet the educational needs of IBCLCs and others involved in supporting lactation and breastfeeding.
The event will be live streamed but also available for several months after the event.
Delegates will receive a certificate of attendance and CERPs will be applied for once the speakers are confirmed.
Find our more and register here.
|
|
|
The Unicef UK Baby Friendly Initiative virtual conference, 18 - 19 November
|
|
This annual conference brings together those involved in the care of babies, their parents and families to learn about the latest research and innovations in infant feeding and relationship building.
The 2026 conference is now open for bookings - find out more here: 2026 Virtual Conference - Baby Friendly Initiative.
|
|
|
The Maternal, Parental and Infant Nutrition and Nurture (MAINN) conference, Grange-Over-Sands, 28 – 30 April 2027
|
|
The MAINN Unit at the University of Lancashire is hosting its biannual conference from 28–30 April 2027.
Building on a long-standing and highly regarded conference series, MAINN 2027 will bring together researchers, practitioners, policy makers, advocates and students to explore the biological, psychological, social, cultural, political and economic dimensions of nutrition and nurture across infancy and early childhood.
The conference continues MAINN’s commitment to advancing biopsychosocial understandings of infant and child feeding, caregiving and wellbeing, and to fostering meaningful dialogue between research, policy and practice.
The deadline for submitting abstracts and posters is 30 November 2026.
For information about the programme and to book, see here.
|
|
|
|
