The global market for infant feeding products, particularly baby food and formula, is a significant and rapidly expanding industry.
According to Precedence Research, this market size surpassed USD 88.87 billion in 2023. It is further estimated to reach around USD 155.32 billion by 2032, growing at a CAGR of 6.40%. This growth is largely driven by a rising global birth rate and increasing consumer spending on newborn care products.
However, behind this booming market lies a growing wave of scientific and legal scrutiny. Recent medical findings and consumer lawsuits have begun to challenge the safety, transparency, and ethical marketing of certain infant feeding products.
As concerns over ingredients and health risks grow, manufacturers face mounting pressure to uphold higher safety and accountability standards.
This article examines the growing scientific and legal scrutiny surrounding infant feeding products and their implications for manufacturers and parents.
Mounting Scientific Criticism of Infant Feeding Products
Over the past two years, researchers and regulatory bodies have raised serious concerns about the nutritional adequacy and safety of many baby foods and formulas.
Building on this momentum, the newly released report “Commercial Baby Foods in Crisis” advances research first initiated in 2018. The year-long study, funded by The Which? Fund, analyzed 632 baby food products using WHO standards and gathered insights from over 1,000 parents.
Findings show that over half of snacks contain added sugars, 41% of main meals are too sweet, and 89% of fruit-based items need high-sugar warnings.
The researchers emphasized that voluntary guidelines have failed, urging stronger regulation to ensure baby foods truly support healthy growth and development.
Recent Recalls and Heightened Regulatory Actions
Recent recalls and regulatory actions have intensified scrutiny over infant feeding products, revealing growing safety lapses within the industry.
According to NBC News, a maker of organic baby formula, ByHeart, has recalled certain batches after federal officials linked them to a 10-state outbreak of infant botulism. Since August, 13 children have been hospitalized after consuming the affected formula.
The FDA has urged parents to discard the affected products and is coordinating with retailers to remove them from shelves. Infant botulism, caused by bacteria-produced toxins, can result in paralysis and even death.
In a separate case, Sprout Organics voluntarily recalled a batch of its Sweet Potato Apple and Spinach pouches after routine testing revealed elevated lead levels. Sold primarily at Walgreens and select independent stores, the recall underscores rising concerns about product contamination.
Together, these incidents highlight how regulatory interventions are now reshaping an industry once resistant to oversight.
Legal Backlash and High-Stakes Litigation
Legal scrutiny surrounding infant feeding products has intensified as families and advocacy groups push for greater accountability over alleged safety lapses. This growing pressure is most evident in the Similac lawsuit, which targets major manufacturers such as Abbott Laboratories (Similac) and Mead Johnson (Enfamil).
The core allegation in the legal battle is that these companies failed to adequately inform parents and healthcare providers about the increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). This serious and potentially fatal intestinal condition has been associated with cow’s milk-based formulas in premature infants.
According to TorHoerman Law, the litigation has already resulted in major financial judgments, including a $495 million verdict in July 2024. The lawsuit reflects a broader push toward corporate accountability and stronger infant safety standards.
Broader Legal and Ethical Challenges
The legal and ethical challenges confronting the infant formula industry extend far beyond cases related to NEC. Manufacturers now face mounting lawsuits over deceptive marketing practices that have drawn widespread criticism. These lawsuits claim that companies mislead parents into believing certain products are superior or essential, even when they are unnecessary for development.
For decades, the commercial milk formula industry has used aggressive marketing, often breaching the WHO’s breastfeeding Code, to create a $55 billion global business. Despite clear evidence that breastfeeding offers proven health benefits for both mothers and babies, less than 50% of infants worldwide are breastfed as recommended by the WHO.
A recent Lancet Series highlights how formula makers target parents, healthcare professionals, and policymakers while lobbying against stronger regulations. In response, governments in Europe and North America have begun tightening advertising standards to ensure parents receive transparent information on infant feeding.
FAQs
What does the government recommend about baby feeding?
Governments, following guidance from the WHO and national health authorities, recommend exclusive breastfeeding for an infant’s first six months. After this period, safe and suitable complementary foods should be introduced while continuing breastfeeding up to two years or longer. Infant formula is suggested only when breastfeeding is not feasible or adequate.
In what ways does formula milk marketing shape parents’ choices regarding infant feeding?
Formula milk marketing often portrays products as essential or superior to breast milk, influencing parents’ perceptions and feeding choices. Through persuasive advertising, health claims, and targeted packaging, companies can create a “health halo.” This often leads caregivers to prioritize formula over breastfeeding, even when breastfeeding is recommended and nutritionally sufficient.
Can breastmilk prevent NEC?
Yes, breastmilk can help prevent NEC (necrotizing enterocolitis) in premature infants. Rich in antibodies, growth factors, and beneficial microbes, it supports gut development and strengthens immunity. Studies show that babies fed breastmilk have a significantly lower risk of NEC compared to those fed cow’s milk-based formulas.
The scientific and legal backlash against infant feeding products marks a pivotal era for the industry. With rising demands for transparency and accountability, manufacturers face increasing pressure to reformulate products and change marketing practices. The Similac NEC lawsuit and similar cases signal a future where infant nutrition is guided as much by science and ethics as by commercial interests.
