Category: Blog Posts

In 2022, two babies died, and a half a dozen were left severely injured due to drinking tainted infant formula manufactured by Abbott Nutrition. This does not include the number of babies made sick from the formula.

After more than three years of investigation, in May 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) criminal prosecution of Abbott Nutrition, the infant formula manufacturer at the center of the 2022 infant formula safety and supply crisis, has been dropped. (1)

According to reporting by the Wall Street Journal, there a was “a pile of evidence” to support these criminal charges of selling tainted food. Per the Radical Mom’s Union, “Prosecutors interviewed by WSJ, believe that Abbott “knowingly” failed to follow manufacturing standards to protect against the risk of contamination and alleged that Abbott had a “culture of concealment” and “withheld information from FDA related to the presence of micro-organisms” in the factory. But under guidance from the Trump administration, the DOJ was instructed to find other means to curtail the, uh, criminal impulses of profit driven companies.”(2)

Now, Abbott Nutrition remains under a consent decree requiring strict monitoring, rapid recall procedures, and potential daily fines for safety violations. Meanwhile, roughly two months before the DOJ’s announcement was made public, President Trump purchased around $500,000 worth of stock shares in Abbott Laboratories. (3) Additionally, the company has contributed roughly $500,000 to Trump’s inaugural fund.

A July 9th press release from U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, confirms that he is opening an inquiry into the DOJ for dropping the case. (4) In the Senator’s letter to the U.S. Acting Attorney General Blanche, Schiff wrote:

“A DOJ spokesperson apparently confirmed the criminal probe was closed, saying ‘criminal charges would have been heavy handed.’ That is a concerning admission: under your management, DOJ does not consider a case involving deadly risks to medically sensitive infants, after a recommendation of a felony charge, to be worthy of criminal prosecution. If prosecuting cases involving the risk of injuries or death to premature infants are not a priority enforcement matter, I have questions about what priorities the DOJ considers worthy of pursuing.” 

His letter to Blanche highlights Trump DOJ’s own filings that say “Abbott repeatedly lied to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and state agencies” in a “years-long and widespread failure to manufacture compliant powder infant formula” involving the dangerous Cronobacter bacteria.

References:

1. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-doj-closes-criminal-probe-into-abbott-over-baby-formula-plant-wsj-reports-2026-06-29/
2. https://radicalmomsunion.substack.com/p/i-am-here-to-enrage-you?img=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbf5d9340-2861-4170-8083-5a60d11c1dfe_1456x819.webp&open=false
3. https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-abbott-laboratories?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
4. https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-who-killed-the-abbott-case-schiff-opens-inquiry-into-reports-that-department-of-justice-closed-criminal-case-against-abbott-laboratories-recommended-by-trumps-own-political-appointees/

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an urgent advisory regarding a voluntary recall of all Nara Organics whole milk organic powdered formula products due to potential contamination with infant botulism.

The potential contamination with Clostridium botulinum bacteria resulted in three infants across the U.S. contracting infant botulism and being hospitalized after being fed Nara Organics Whole Milk Infant Formula.

Infants may develop symptoms, including constipation, poor feeding, loss of head control, difficulty swallowing, droopy eyelids, slow pupils, diminished reflexes and facial expression, and breathing difficulties. Infant botulism can take weeks to develop after ingesting Clostridium botulinum bacteria, making tracing timelines vital to diagnosis and treatment of the illness.

Immediate Recommendations for Families:

• Stop Use Immediately: Families using this specific formula should discontinue it right away and discard any remaining product.
• Monitor Closely: If a child has consumed this product, caregivers should watch closely for symptoms of infant botulism.
• Seek Emergency Care: If an infant shows any signs of illness, caregivers should seek emergency medical care immediately rather than waiting for a formal diagnosis.

This alert comes just a few weeks after the FDA published their Executive Summary on the ByHeart recall that infected over 40 babies with botulism. From the summary:

Even though there are several hypotheses, investigational findings could not identify the source or root cause of contamination of the powdered infant formula.

As noted by the Radical Mom’s Union, “it’s pretty scary that even with the full scrutiny of the federal government there are no answers to the outbreak. That leaves parents in the lurch and allows companies to continue policing themselves. And remember, this ByHeart recall was unprecedented because up until 2025 botulism in baby formula was not a concern! Companies weren’t required to test for it. Now, here we are again.”

Over the past several years, there have been numerous cases of toxins and bacteria found in infant formula in the U.S., leading to product recalls, and in some cases, nationwide recalls.

Between 2021 and 2022, four infants were sickened by a different germ after consuming formula made by Abbott Nutrition. Two of the babies died. No direct link was found between the Abbott products and the infections caused by a different germ, cronobacter sakazakii, but FDA officials closed the company’s Michigan plant after contamination and other problems were detected. Abbott then recalled top brands of infant formula, triggering a nationwide shortage that lasted months. This recall is now referred to as the most consequential formula recall in modern U.S. history.

In 2023, Reckitt Benckiser/Enfamil issued a recall of their own. About 145,000 cans of powdered, plant-based formula were recalled for potential Cronobacter contamination.

Then, in 2024, Nutramigen issued a recall for the possible Cronobacter contamination of over 600,000 cans of powdered infant formula.

In 2025, ByHeart issued a recall due to concerns of bacteria causing infant botulism. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is investigating 84 cases of infant botulism detected since August 2025. This contamination event raises questions about spore-forming bacteria controls in powdered infant formula and the manufacturing plants producing those cans of formula.

Most recently, on May 4, 2026, the a2 Milk Company is recalling more than 16,000 units of its a2 Platinum Premium USA infant formula tins due to cereulide being found in them, according to a notice issued May 2 by the Food & Drug Administration. The presence of this toxin can cause nausea and vomiting. This most recent contamination event is relevant because it involves toxin contamination, not bacterial contamination, and shows emerging hazards beyond just the Cronobacter bacteria.

Across all of these U.S.-based recalls, the pattern is clear – powdered infant formula is not sterile, which remains a structural safety issue. Similarly, many of these aforementioned recalls stem from environmental contamination in manufacturing plants, raising questions about the monitoring and enforcement of standards in those settings.

---

What is being done to address these contamination events on a global scale?

There are many different organizations and agencies that are tackling the issue of contaminated powdered infant formula from different angles.

The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN)(1) continues to advocate for adoption of the WHO Code and its subsequent World Health Assembly Resolutions and encourages countries across the globe to strengthen their monitoring and enforcement of the WHO Code. In response to calls from IBFAN and other health advocacy organizations about the recent crises, the WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) have begun the process to update their risk assessments and scientific advice (Microbiological Risk Assessment), which is now nearly 20 years old, and no longer adequate to prevent contamination with spore-forming pathogens and bacterial toxins.

IBFAN continues to push for a new World Health Assembly resolution to protect families from these ongoing contamination events. A new resolution would:

1. Ensure health facilities follow Baby Friendly recommendations, [2] and provide mandatory paid maternity protection and leave.
2. Speed up the updating of the 20 year-old Codex and WHO Guidelines that do not address Bacillus cereus, Clostridium botulinum or heat-resistant spore forming contaminants;[1]
3. Ensure that national food safety surveillance and verification is independent, transparent and free from commercial interference and that whistle-blowers are listened to;
4. Ensure parents are better informed through clear labelling and family support in line with WHO marketing recommendations and on the regulation of digital marketing;
5. Ensure health facilities follow Baby Friendly recommendations, [2] and provide mandatory paid maternity protection and leave.

What is being done to address these contamination events in the U.S.A?

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro introduced the Infant Formula Safety Modernization Act in March, 2026. According to the office of the bill sponsor, the bill would:

•      Expand required pathogen testing. Direct FDA to develop a comprehensive list of pathogens and microorganisms that infant formula manufacturers must test for — moving beyond the current requirement, which covers only Cronobacter and Salmonella. Clostridium botulinum would be required on that list.

•      Mandate environmental testing. Require standardized environmental monitoring inside infant formula facilities — a proactive practice that detects contamination in the production environment before it reaches the product. This testing is not currently required by law, despite its importance.

•      Set consistent testing standards. Specify the frequency of environmental testing so that all manufacturers operate under uniform FDA-set standards, rather than each company setting its own.

•      Require early FDA notification. Compel manufacturers to notify FDA of any positive pathogen test — even if the affected formula has not left the facility. Under current law, companies are not required to alert FDA unless adulterated formula has already entered the supply chain.

•      Hold foreign manufacturers to the same standards. Ensure that all infant formula sold in the United States — whether produced domestically or abroad — meets the same safety requirements.

•      Strengthen Congressional oversight. Require the Secretary to notify Congress of any confirmed positive pathogen test in finished infant formula, as well as any “Official Action Indicated” finding during an FDA facility inspection — the agency’s most serious compliance designation, requiring corrective on.

It is unclear what safeguards can be in place to prevent Conflicts of Interest from influencing the testing of infant formula products and manufacturing plants. It is also unclear, and outside of the scope of this Act, what can be done to notify the public about contamination events in the U.S., as an independent, public notification system currently does not exist.

INFACT USA and INFACT Canada both met with the sponsor’s office and recommended that the bill be amended to require:

1. Any outsourced testing laboratories or other facilities contracted must be free of improper or undue influence or conflict of interest.

1. Labelling must contain warnings that the products are not sterile and full information on the recommended reconstitution, storage, handling and use by competent authorities.     

1. Mandate rapid public notification and maintain a centralized data reporting base when infants are hospitalized with suspected foodborne, bacterial or viral illness linked to the feeding of baby food and infant formula products.

Lack of congruency between contamination events and FDA reporting

Ironically, just one week before the most recent announcement from a2 and their recall, the FDA released results from an examination focused on chemical contaminants in infant formula available on the U.S. market. The FDA is concluding from that examination that infant formula is “safe.” (2)

The FDA tested 312 samples from 16 brands, but did not say in its report what brands it tested. Additionally, despite claiming a rigorous methodology, the testing program did not include foodborne pathogens such as Cronobacter, Listeria, Salmonella and E. coli.

The United States doesn’t have a legal limit for any of the metals in infant formula the FDA tested for. Consequently, when the FDA calls formula “safe,” there is no standard behind that word (3). A summary of the results can be found below, as reported by Food Safety News.

• Mercury was not detected in 296 out of 312 samples (95 percent). Among all samples, concentrations ranged from not detected to 0.3 ppb. Given the high number of non-detects, a 95th percentile and median were not calculated.
• Cadmium was not detected in 106 out of 312 samples (34 percent). Among all samples, concentrations ranged from not detected to 1.5 ppb. 95 percent of all samples had less than 1.1 ppb of cadmium. The median cadmium concentration was  0.2 ppb.
• Lead was not detected in 61 out of 312 samples (20%). Among all samples, concentrations ranged from not detected to 1.1 ppb, with 95% of samples containing less than 0.5 ppb of lead. The median lead concentration was 0.2 ppb.
• Arsenic was not detected in 18 out of 312 samples (6 percent). Among all samples, concentrations ranged from not detected to 4.7 ppb. 95 percent of all samples had less than 2.0 ppb of arsenic. The median arsenic concentration was 0.5 ppb. 
• Pesticides: Each of the samples were tested for 318 different pesticides, including glyphosate and glufosinate. 309 samples (99 percent) had no detectable pesticides, and glyphosate and glufosinate were not detected in any samples. Given the high number of non-detects, a 95th percentile and median were not calculated. Only three samples had detectable pesticide levels, all at very low concentrations: 0.25 ppb chlorpyrifos in one sample, 0.20 ppb malathion in another sample, and 0.20 ppb piperonyl butoxide in a third sample.
• PFAS: Each of the samples were tested for 30 different PFAS compounds. Most PFAS compounds (25 of 30) were not found in any samples. Five PFAS were detected in a subset of samples at concentrations ranging from 0.51 ppt to 150 ppt, depending on the compound. The most commonly detected was Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), found in half of samples at detectable concentrations ranging from 0.51 to 6.0 ppt, with 95 percent of all samples containing less than 2.9 ppt of PFOS. Given the high number of non-detects, the median was not calculated. PFAS levels are often reported in parts per trillion (ppt) because testing methods can detect these contaminants at extremely low concentrations. One part per trillion is equivalent to one second in 32,000 years, or one drop in 1,000 Olympic-size swimming pools.
• Phthalates: Each of the samples were tested for 21 phthalates and 1 non-phthalate plasticizer. Phthalates were not detected in 167 out of 312 samples (54 percent). Among the compounds tested. Seven phthalates were not detected in any samples. Five phthalates were rarely detected (in fewer than 2 percent of samples). The remaining compounds that were detected had concentrations ranging from not detected to 145 ppb.The most commonly detected phthalate compounds were DEHP and DINP: 
• DEHP was not detected in 253 out of 312 samples (81 percent). Among the samples, DEHP concentrations ranged from not detected to 57 ppb. Given the high number of non-detects, a 95th percentile and median were not calculated. DINP was not detected in 260 out 312 samples (83 percent). Among the samples, DINP concentrations ranged from not detected to 145 ppb. Given the high number of non-detects, a 95th percentile and median were not calculated.
• Human milk: While this phase of testing focused specifically on infant formula products, the FDA also tested a limited number (110) of human milk samples from a single state donor human milk bank for arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead. Overall, the majority of samples (85 percent) had at least one detectable contaminant, while 17 samples (15 percent) had no detects of any of the contaminants. Mercury demonstrated the highest detection rate at 61 percent, followed by cadmium at 57 percent, arsenic at 33 percent, and lead at 30 percent. 

References

1. https://www.babymilkaction.org/archives/50475
2. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-releases-results-largest-ever-testing-infant-formula-us
3. https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2026/05/fda-says-infant-formulas-are-safe/

REPOST: Baby Milk Action Network

With parents’ trust in commercial food systems eroded, the global network IBFAN will urge governments at WHO’s Executive Board meeting in Geneva to take the lead and ensure that families are better protected.  Increasing numbers of contamination outbreaks are exposing systemic failures in formula production, regulatory surveillance, recall systems and crisis communication.

 A new Emergency Resolution is needed to:

(1)    speed up the updating of the 20 year-old Codex and WHO Guidelines that do not address Bacillus cereus, Clostridium botulinum or heat-resistant spore formingcontaminants;^[1]

(2)    ensure that national food safety surveillance and verification is independent, transparent and free from commercial interference and that whistle-blowers are listened to; 

(3)    ensure parents are better informed  through clear labelling and family support in line with WHO marketing recommendations and WHA78.18 on the regulation of digital marketing;  

(4)    ensure health facilities follow Baby Friendly recommendations, ^[2] and provide mandatory paid maternity protection and leave.

Intrinsic contamination of formula has been commonplace for decades and has led to infant fatalities, factory closures, interrupted supplies and distress to families. Commercial formula requires strict manufacturing controls, transparent testing, rapid warning and family support.

Cross-border online promotion and sale exacerbates food safety risks. Families are harder to trace and products may not be registered or regulated. Idealising promotion undermines breastfeeding and is especially problematic when support systems are inappropriate and in settings where the risks are greater. Because they are not regulated by the International Code,  US company ByHeart claimed that its contaminated products (that resulted in 51 infants hospitalised with botulism) had undergone ‘rigorous testing, going above and beyond what is required’ and are ‘filled with ingredients backed by breast milk science in every scoop.’ ByHeart formula was shipped to 21 countries where botulism diagnosis may be restricted and access to treatment reduced.^[3]

Nestlé’s formulas contaminated with cereulide, a toxin produced by Bacillus cereus, were recalled from over 60 countries in January, a recall described as the biggest in the history of the company.^[4] Nestlé refused to name Cabio Biotech, a Chinese company based in Wuhan. The problem has spread and the baby food industry is said to be in crisis. With criminal complaints filed by Foodwatch about Nestlé’s delays and lack of transparency and judicial inquiries into the deaths of babies in France.

---

^[1] WHO Guideline on the Safe preparation, storage and handling of powdered infant formula (2007)

Code of Hygienic Practice for Powdered Formulae for Infants and Young Children,(2009)

^[2] WHO UNICEF Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative

^[3] ByHeart & Botulism: serious food safety failings expose online marketing risks December 2026

ByHeart’sAI and social media investors may soon resume production and promotion to recoup their investment.

^[4] Nestlé’s credibility questioned as formulas recalled in 60+ countries over contamination risk. Jan 2026

SOURCE: https://www.babymilkaction.org/archives/50475

SUMMARY

Public Health advocates warmly welcomed the decision by the Food Hygiene Committee (CCFH55) of the Codex Alimentarius to conduct risk assessment on Clostridium botulinum, a newly exposed risk of powdered infant formula and to update its scientific advice on Cronobacter and Salmonella.(1) The decision was supported by WHO, FAO, the EU, the USA and many countries.

Delegates from dozens of countries gathered in Nashville for CCFH55, the UN global body that develops standards that form the basis of national legislation and are used as benchmarks in trade disputes. IBFAN and ENCA, two of the very few Codex observers who are not funded by the food industry, joined the meeting to call for the safeguards to require stricter manufacturing safeguards and independent controls.

A full brief of the meeting and IBFAN’s role can be found here: https://www.babymilkaction.org/archives/49790

IBFAN’s Comprehensive Statement on the recent ByHeart contamination, explained below, can be found here: https://www.babymilkaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/IBFANStatement_ByHeart.FINALPage.pdf

Reposted from the Associated Press as of November 17, 2025:

Nearly two dozen babies in 13 states have been sickened in a growing outbreak of infantile botulism linked to recalled ByHeart infant formula, federal health officials said Friday.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reported 23 cases of confirmed or suspected illness in babies who consumed ByHeart formula since August. That’s an increase of 10 babies treated for the rare and potentially deadly disease since the outbreak was announced Nov. 8. The most recent case was reported on Nov. 11.

No deaths have been reported.

“Parents and caregivers should stop using any ByHeart infant formula products immediately,” the FDA said.

ByHeart, a New York-based manufacturer of organic infant formula, has recalled all its products sold in the U.S. The company, which accounts for about 1% of the U.S. infant formula market, had been selling about 200,000 cans of the product each month.

It can take up to 30 days for symptoms of infantile botulism to develop, medical experts said.

Here’s what to know about the outbreak and infant botulism.

The outbreak begins

The outbreak has sickened babies age 2 weeks to 5 months since it started. The infants were hospitalized after consuming ByHeart powdered formula, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

California officials confirmed that a sample from an open can of ByHeart baby formula fed to an infant who fell ill contained the type of bacteria that causes the toxin linked to the outbreak. The tests to confirm contamination involve injecting mice with the cultured bacterium and then waiting up to four days to see if they get sick, said Dr. Erica Pan, the state health officer.

“These mice got sick really quickly,” Pan said in an interview.

ByHeart officials said they recalled their products “in close collaboration” with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, despite the fact that no previously unopened product tested positive for the illness-causing bacteria. The type of bacteria that produces the toxin is widespread in the environment and could come from sources other than the formula, company officials said.

The FDA is investigating 84 cases of infant botulism detected since August. Of those, 15 consumed ByHeart formula, the agency said in a statement.

“This information shows that ByHeart brand formula is disproportionately represented among sick infants in this outbreak, especially given that ByHeart represents an estimated 1% of all infant formula sales in the United States,” the agency said.

Illnesses began between Aug. 9 and Nov. 10, federal officials said. Cases were reported in Arizona, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas and Washington.

Investigators have not identified any other infant formula brands or other sources of exposure in the outbreak, officials said.

Causes of infant botulism

Infant botulism typically affects fewer than 200 babies in the U.S. each year. It is caused by a type of bacteria that produces a toxin in the large intestine. The bacterium is spread through hardy spores present in the environment that can cause serious illness, including paralysis.

Infants are particularly vulnerable to infection because their gut microbiomes are not developed enough to prevent the spores from germinating and producing the toxin. They can be sickened after exposure to the spores in dust, dirt or water or by eating contaminated honey.

Symptoms can take weeks to develop and can include poor feeding, loss of head control, drooping eyelids and a flat facial expression. Babies may feel “floppy” and can have problems swallowing or breathing.

No known outbreaks of infant botulism tied to powdered formula have previously been confirmed, said Dr. Steven Abrams, a University of Texas nutrition expert.

Infant botulism treatment

The only treatment is known as BabyBIG, an IV medication made from the pooled blood plasma of adults immunized against botulism. California’s Infant Botulism Treatment and Prevention Program developed the product and is the sole source worldwide.

BabyBIG works to shorten hospital stays and decrease the severity of illness in babies with botulism. Because the infection can affect the ability to breathe, infants often need to be placed on ventilators.

All of the children in the ByHeart outbreak have received the medication, the CDC said. The treatment is delivered in vials that cost $69,300 apiece, Pan said.

Potential impact on U.S. formula supplies

There is little danger of infant formula shortages because ByHeart represents a small share of the market. That’s far different from the crises in late 2021 and 2022, when four infants were sickened by a different germ after consuming formula made by Abbott Nutrition. Two of the babies died. No direct link was found between the Abbott products and the infections caused by a different germ, cronobacter sakazakii, but FDA officials closed the company’s Michigan plant after contamination and other problems were detected.

Abbott recalled top brands of infant formula, triggering a nationwide shortage that lasted months.

In 2022, ByHeart recalled five batches of infant formula after a sample at the company’s packaging plant tested positive for cronobacter sakazakii. In 2023, the FDA sent a warning letter to the company detailing “areas that still require corrective actions.”

Reviewing infant formula ingredients

Federal health officials have vowed to overhaul the U.S. food supply and are taking a new look at infant formula.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has directed the FDA to review the nutrients and other ingredients in infant formula, which fills the bottles of millions of American babies.

The effort, dubbed “Operation Stork Speed,” is the first deep look at the ingredients since 1998.

FDA officials are reviewing comments from industry, health experts and public to decide next steps.

SOURCE: https://apnews.com/article/byheart-baby-formula-botulism-recall-98ad391ac5606c980a012d35f5f7637c

On May 26, 2025, members of the IBFAN global team rejoiced in Geneva, and through a shared group chat, as the World Health Assembly’s Member States voted favorably on expanding the Code to cover digital marketing of breast-milk substitutes (“BMS”).

The full text of the resolution can be found here: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB156/B156_CONF16Rev1-en.pdf

Patti Rundall, Policy Director of IBFAN UK, writes:

“Over recent years, new tactics for digital marketing have proliferated, for instance through influencer endorsements, virtual “support groups”, and personal targeting of pregnant women and new parents across their social media feeds. Many of these promotions are funded by baby food companies but their sponsorship is undisclosed. Advertisements are widely circulated across national borders – creating new challenges for regulation.

In line with recent guidance from WHO, the 2025 Resolution calls for robust efforts to develop, strengthen and coordinate the regulation of digital marketing to protect children’s health. It calls on countries to build effective systems for monitoring and enforcement.

Despite the existence of the Code, a major study from WHO and UNICEF found that over half of new parents had been exposed to promotions from formula milk companies. In some countries, this was over 90%. The new Resolution covers the marketing of formula milks, teats and bottles, as well as foods for infants and young children.”

Source: https://www.babymilkaction.org/archives/46980

This Resolution is a huge milestone and marker of success for IBFAN.

Yesterday, February 10, 2025, the WHO’s 156th Executive Board agreed to forward a draft Resolution Regulating the digital marketing of breast-milk substitutes to the 78th World Health Assembly in May of 2025. IBFAN has worked tirelessly with Member States over the past several years to see a draft resolution on this topic come to fruition. The draft Resolution moving on to the 78th WHA is proposed by 21 Member States (Armenia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iraq, Lesotho, Mexico, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Uruguay and Vanuatu).

As noted by IBFAN leader, Patti Rundall, “Brazil has taken the lead in this Resolution and after organising numerous briefings with Member States, and disseminated the final draft text to all Member States on the 7th of February….The debate on its formal adoption will take place in May” (1).

The Draft Resolution contains many important paragraphs, which if finally adopted at the Assembly in May, can be used by health advocates to protect child health from corporate interference. To read more about the details contained in the Draft, please visit Baby Milk Actions’ Policy Blog: https://www.babymilkaction.org/archives/46341.

Sources:

(1) https://www.babymilkaction.org/archives/46341

Abbott Laboratories has been named as the defendant of a lawsuit filed on December 26th in California. They are representing purchasers of Similac and PediaSure nationwide. The lawsuit claims that these companies’ toddler milk products are nutritionally unnecessary, despite the marketing claims that they help to advance development of children over 1 year old.

The U.S. FDA has established nutritional and labeling standards for infant formula, these regulations apply only to products intended for children under 12 months of age. This leaves a major gap in the marketing rules for products beyond 12 months of age – a gap which the baby food industry has long exploited.

As noted in the 2023 Lancet Series on Breastfeeding, billions of dollars have been devoted to persuasive advertisements online in order to influence families and policy makers that commercial milk formulas (CMFs) are as good for an infant’s health as breastfeeding is (Rollins et al., 2023). The marketing tactics of CMF companies exploit emotions, aspirations, and misleading science to generate sales at the expense of the health and rights of families, women, and children.

As noted in the lawsuit, the ingredients added to these products are knowingly unhealthy. “The drinks’ primary ingredients—sugar, corn syrup, vegetable oils, and highly processed carbohydrates—render Abbott’s health marketing claims dangerously false. While this is true for all children Abbott targets, it is particularly egregious for children under the age of two, given the medical consensus that children this young should not consume any added sugars.”

Although neither plaintiff in the case claim their children were harmed by Similac or PediaSure, they state that they would not have repeatedly purchased the products over the years had the labeling and advertising been truthful. They seek compensation for themselves and other parents or caregivers who purchased either product.

A full copy of the lawsuit can be found here: https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2024-12-26-toddlermilk-ulrich-class-action.pdf

On December 24, 2024, ProPublica reported on new regulations in Thailand that will “force baby formula companies to stop advertising, giveaways and discounts for so-called toddler milk.” This advancement is seen as a huge success for Thailand, which has been attempting to regulate such advertisements and discounts since 2017.

While a wide range of products will be impacted by the new regulations, the major focus of Thailand’s work to regulate has been on toddler milks. As reported, “[Back in 2017] formula makers like Mead Johnson asked U.S. trade officials to intervene [on regulation attempts], setting off a 15-month diplomatic and political pressure campaign that resulted in an exemption for toddler milk ads.” This intervention continued forward to the 2017 World Trade Organization meeting, where the U.S. publicly shamed Thai health officials for proposing regulations on toddler milks.

Notably, in 2024, “the U.S. took a different approach. In a letter to Thai authorities, officials said the U.S. “supports Thailand’s objective to prevent deceptive marketing practices thereby protecting the health and wellbeing of both infants and young children.”

Despite this change of tune from the U.S., Thailand continues to face backlash from large trade groups, including the US-ASEAN Business Council and the Infant Nutrition Council of America.

Regardless of this push back, Thailand continues to press forward and advocate for the health and well being of infants and toddlers, with the regulations set to take effect in July.

Original ProPublica Article: https://www.propublica.org/article/thailand-bans-advertising-toddler-milk