Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that Nestlé prioritizes profit and growth over nutritional science in its infant milk business. Through an analysis of 79 products in 40 countries, the authors found that Nestlé's marketing claims often contradict its own nutritional advice and the scientific evidence provided by bodies like the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Key discrepancies include the use of sucrose and flavorings in markets where the company advises against them, and the use of 'probiotic' claims in regions where such claims lack scientific authorization. The report concludes that 'premium' product differentiation is driven by consumer preferences and market trends rather than health outcomes.

The report examines the practices of Nestlé, Danone, Mead Johnson Nutrition, and Abbott, concluding that the proliferation of 'premium' and 'specialised' infant formulas is a strategy to increase market share and profit margins, particularly in Asia, often at the expense of breastfeeding promotion and consumer affordability.