Why IBCLCs Care So Much About Formula Marketing (It’s Not What You Think)

By Amey | IBCLC, RN

Let me start with something that might surprise you.

I recommend formula in my clinical work every single day. Supplementation, combo feeding, bottle-only — all of it. Formula is a legitimate clinical tool and there is zero shame in any feeding path.

So when I talk about formula marketing, I am not talking about formula. I am talking about an industry with a documented, decades-long history of targeting new mothers at their most vulnerable — in ways that have undermined breastfeeding, eroded confidence, and at its absolute worst, cost infant lives.

This is not my opinion. This is history. And most people have no idea how it started.

The “Milk Nurses” — Yes, This Actually Happened

In the 1970s, as breastfeeding rates started recovering in wealthier countries, formula companies needed new markets. So they turned to the developing world.

Here is what they did:

∙ Sent saleswomen into hospitals dressed as nurses to hand out free formula samples to new mothers

∙ Gave gifts to doctors and hospital staff to encourage them to recommend formula over breastfeeding

∙ Ran aggressive advertising campaigns positioning formula as modern, scientific, and superior to breast milk

∙ Flooded maternity wards with free samples — knowing that early formula use suppresses milk supply, creating long-term dependence on their product

They knew exactly what they were doing. Nestlé’s own 1969 annual report noted that maternity hospitals were strategic because “the medical staff there is more likely to influence mothers with regard to the food most suitable for their babies.”

The problem? In countries without reliable access to clean water, mixing powdered formula with contaminated water was deadly. Infants suffered from malnutrition, diarrhea, and in far too many cases, death.

The Timeline: How the World Finally Fought Back

1939 — Dr. Cicely Williams, a British physician working in Singapore, becomes one of the first doctors to publicly warn about the dangers of formula promotion. Almost no one listens.

1973 — New Internationalist magazine publishes an exposé on formula marketing in developing countries called “Babies Mean Business.” People start paying attention.

1974 — British NGO War on Want publishes The Baby Killer, documenting Nestlé’s aggressive marketing practices. It gets translated into German as Nestlé Kills Babies. Nestlé sues for libel — and wins — but the judge warns them to fundamentally change their marketing or risk their products becoming “lethally dangerous.”

1977 — The Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT) launches a full boycott of Nestlé in the United States. It spreads internationally within months.

1978 — Senator Edward Kennedy holds US Senate hearings on formula marketing in developing countries.

1979 — WHO and UNICEF convene an international meeting. The world agrees: a marketing code is needed.

1981 — The WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes passes by 118 votes to 1. The United States casts the sole negative vote.  The Code bans direct advertising of formula to the public, prohibits free samples to mothers, and outlaws gifts or incentives to health workers.

1984 — After seven years of global boycott, Nestlé agrees to comply with the WHO Code. The boycott is suspended.

1988 — The boycott relaunches. Violations continue.

Today — The formula industry generates over $55 billion in annual sales. Aggressive marketing continues largely unabated — now targeting parents through social media, celebrity partnerships, and influencer campaigns.

The Playbook Never Changed — It Just Got a Rebrand

The milk nurses are gone. But the strategy of reaching vulnerable new mothers through trusted voices? That never left.

Here is what modern formula marketing looks like:

∙ Celebrity partnerships that make formula feel aspirational and trendy

∙ “Fed is best” framing used to shut down any criticism of marketing practices

∙ Influencer campaigns reaching millions of new and expectant mothers

∙ Emotional language around maternal identity, freedom, and empowerment — designed to make questioning their product feel like an attack on mothers themselves

∙ Launching campaigns during World Breastfeeding Week — yes, that has actually happened. (We are talking about your Bobbie formula)

A 2023 Lancet series documented how formula companies exploit parental anxieties — suggesting their products alleviate fussiness, help with colic, prolong night-time sleep, and boost intelligence, with labels using words like “brain,” “neuro,” and “IQ” — despite studies showing no benefit on long-term cognition.

Research also found that formula companies wield enormous lobbying power in Washington — slowing and even halting breastfeeding policy improvements and paid leave legislation that would help more mothers breastfeed.

So Why Do IBCLCs Keep Talking About This?

Because we sit with mothers every single day who doubted their bodies, who stopped breastfeeding before they wanted to, who never got the support they needed — because the marketing got there first.

As Yale researchers put it: a criticism of the formula industry’s predatory marketing practices should not be interpreted as a criticism of women. All information families receive on infant feeding must be accurate and independent of industry influence to ensure truly informed decision making. 

That is it. That is the whole thing.

We are not anti-formula. We are pro-informed. And now you are too.