How milk formula companies are putting profits before science

31 October 2017 – New investigation reveals the lack of science behind product ranges of top four baby milk companies

A new investigative report by The Changing Markets Foundation, Globalization Monitor, SumOfUs and the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) reveals that the four leading manufacturers of milk formulas are unduly boosting profits by exploiting parents’ understandable desire to give the best possible nutrition to their babies.

The report, Milking It: How milk formula companies are putting profits before science, reviewed more than 400 infant milks for babies under 12 months old from the four leading global manufacturers: Nestlé, Danone, Mead Johnson Nutrition[1] and Abbott, sold at 14 markets. It concluded that product differentiation is not science-based, but instead informed by careful research into consumer preferences, and guided by a desire to increase manufacturers’ market share and profits, especially in highly competitive, rapidly growing Asian markets.

The researchers found ‘premium’ milk formulas contain additional nutrients not required by law or global standard, which claim to get formula milk ‘closer to breastmilk’, or to represent ‘the latest developments in nutritional science’. Other products contain specific ingredients claiming to solve general conditions (preventing allergies, promoting softer stools and better sleep, etc), or to be free of genetically modified organisms. The very fact that companies place infant milks with different formulations on different markets suggests there is little nutritional science and few beneficial health considerations behind their extensive product ranges.

Our report found that instead of nutritional science, companies are basing their selling strategies on market research and consumer preferences,” said Nusa Urbancic from Changing Markets Foundation. “Product differentials are carefully and deliberately designed to appeal to the tastes and lifestyle preferences of parents, or their natural desire to give their babies the best possible start in life. As such, manufacturers can package these products in ‘premium’ ranges and charge high prices accordingly.” …

The “best possible start in life” …. oh my god.  We are in such trouble.

9) The medical community’s “guidance” on breastfeeding is a scandal in itself. Even without the now abundant evidence of the immunological, nutritional, intellectual and psychological benefits of breastfeeding for the baby, and its psychological, hormonal and physiological benefits for post-partum mothers, common sense and human empathy would strongly argue against intervening in this intimate time of mother-child bonding. Yet generations of american children have been denied this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for normal health, growth and emotional well being on the basis of little more than uninformed medical hubris working in concert with a well-financed corporate marketing campaign. The social costs of this medically inspired mass emotional neglect are predictable.

Hospitals receive kickbacks from formula companies for handing out formula to new mothers, interfering with the crucial first few days when breastfeeding must be initiated:

Meanwhile, the US WIC program for low income families distributes vouchers for infant formula, promoting poor health and lower IQ among poor children:

Breast milk contains oxytocin, the hormone of love and bonding:

Bottle feeding linked to post partum depression

Lack of breast feeding linked to autism

Baby formula is contaminated with aluminum:

Fluoride from drinking water (and “fortified formula water”) combines with aluminum. The fluoroaluminum complex is transported into the brain:

“Three new studies led by Notre Dame Psychology Professor Darcia Narvaez show a relationship between child rearing practices common in foraging hunter-gatherer societies (how we humans have spent about 99 percent of our history) and better mental health, greater empathy and conscience development, and higher intelligence in children. “Our research shows that the roots of moral functioning form early in life, in infancy, and depend on the affective quality of family and community support,” says Narvaez, who specializes in the moral and character development of children. …

“Narvaez identifies six characteristics of child rearing that were common to our distant ancestors:

Lots of positive touch – as in no spanking – but nearly constant carrying, cuddling and holding

Prompt response to baby’s fusses and cries. You can’t “spoil” a baby. This means meeting a child’s needs before they get upset and the brain is flooded with toxic chemicals. “Warm, responsive caregiving like this keeps the infant’s brain calm in the years it is forming its personality and response to the world,” Narvaez says

Breastfeeding, ideally 2 to 5 years. A child’s immune system isn’t fully formed until age 6 and breast milk provides its building blocks

Multiple adult caregivers – people beyond mom and dad who also love the child

Free play with multi-age playmates. Studies show that kids who don’t play enough are more likely to have ADHD and other mental health issues

Natural childbirth, which provides mothers with the hormone boosts that give the energy to care for a newborn.


It is generally known (back to medieval or ancient times) that deprivation of sensory stimuli like voice and vision in the early phases of human life will cause irreversible mental retardation in the child. Also the prevention of child play will cause intellectual deficits in the adult. But eyes, ears and the nose are not the only human sensory systems.

Additionally there are the two body sensor systems, the “somatosensors”. One is the vestibular sensor for maintaining orientation and upright walk. The other one is the skin, for sensing touch.


Through the work of James W. Prescott, Ph.D. and various others until the mid 1970s it was established that these previously neglected senses are of overwhelming importance for the development of social abilities for adult life. Their deprivation in childhood is a major cause for adult violence.

James W. Prescott, Ph.D., was a health scientist administrator at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), one of the Institutes of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) from 1966 to 1980. He created and directed the Developmental Behavioral Biology Program at the NICHD where he initiated NICHD supported research programs that documented how the failure of “Mother Love” in infant monkeys adversely affected the biological development of their brains. These astonishing abnormal brain changes underlie the behaviors of depression, impulse dyscontrol and violence that result from mother-infant separations.


These behavioral effects were confirmed in his studies on primitive cultures including the effects of sensory deprivation of human sexual pleasure and affection during adolescence. The results of these scientific studies do not support the many traditional religious and cultural values throughout the world, which deny the importance of “Mothering” and of youth affectional sexual relationships for peaceful and loving behaviors.

The continuation of this research was obstructed and eventually cancelled by the NICHD. Even the existence and results of these NICHD supported research programs was consciously omitted in a recent NIH publication.

On this web site, you can read the whole story. Here you can read a short history of Dr. Prescott’s research and the full text of the groundbreaking article “Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence”, watch the complete Time Life video documentary Rock A Bye Baby, browse the comprehensive archive of scientific papers and visit related websites from our list of selected links.

The fact that this nobel-prize-worthy taxpayer funded research was eventually actively suppressed and disavowed by the NIH certainly suggests that washington is under the control of highly questionable people.  Are they all satanic pedophile cannibals?   No.   Just the ones in pivotal positions of power, the rest are sheep like the rest of us.

One thought on “How milk formula companies are putting profits before science”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.