There are few things more complicated and confusing for new parents than feeding their babies. Every day, we’re saturated by information from doctors, websites, and friends or family, telling us that this is “good” and that is “bad”, and what’s “enough” and what foods or nutrition are “necessary” for our children to thrive and be healthy.
Lots of this information is true and worthwhile (particularly when it comes from your pediatrician). But occasionally, products—yes, the products—make promises or assertions about being healthy, or about the benefits they provide to your baby or child.
One such assertion is being made in a class action lawsuit against Abbott Nutrition, the manufacturer of Similac formula. The lawsuit claims Abbott misled parents with label advertising on drinks marketed for toddler nutrition, when in fact, the company’s marketing of certain products as important for toddler development and nutrition was false advertising. In a lawsuit initiated by the director of the Center for Public Health Litigation, a nonprofit associated with Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, Abbott is being sued to change their advertising and compensate parents who purchased certain “toddler milk” because of the company’s “misleading, unlawful and unfair marketing practices.”
Three California parents also filed a claim against Mead Johnson Nutrition, the manufacturer of Enfagrow Premium Toddler Nutritional Drink and Enfagrow NeuroPro Toddler Nutritional Drink products. The claim against this company was also for using “deceptive and unlawful practices in labeling and marketing.”
What is “toddler milk”?
“Toddler milk”, as it’s called, is advertised as a nutritional beverage for children who are 1-3 years old. Typically, it’s in the form of a powdered drink mix that’s made from powdered milk, vegetable oil, and added sugars and nutrients. This product is typically found on the store shelves alongside infant formula and is marketed as a “continuation” of formula to be used until a child is three years old.
How is toddler milk different from baby formula?
Baby formula is a strictly-regulated product designed to meet the nutritional needs of babies from birth to one year. It’s intended to mimic the nutritional content of breastmilk.
Toddler milk (also called toddler formula, follow-up formula, transition formula, weaning formula, or growing-up milk), on the other hand, is unregulated by the FDA, and it typically contains more sugar, fat and sodium than baby formula. It’s been shown to have no proven benefit over whole milk for a healthy toddler. It is not recommended by public health authorities like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).
What are doctors’ concerns about toddler milk?
Health authorities and pediatricians are concerned about its added sugars and the potential that it could replace a balanced diet of solid foods and whole milk for a toddler. The AAP and physicians recommend that toddlers consume a combination of breast milk (or formula if the child is under one year), whole cow’s milk, and a variety of solid foods. Additionally, physicians are concerned about the products’ unregulated status, the potential for variation in nutrients, and the failure to adhere to any type of nutritional guidelines.
Most toddler milk products contain high-calorie sweeteners like corn syrup, which is never recommended for a toddler diet. Toddlers under age 2 should not have processed sugar, according to federal guidelines. Many brands of toddler milk are also higher in sodium than cow’s milk. As well, toddler milks tend to contain vegetable oil in order to meet a child’s energy needs.
Because of the added sugars, physicians are concerned about children developing preferences for these sweetened flavors and excess salt. Taste preferences develop in early childhood, so the concern is that children will become accustomed to sweet and salty flavors and then grow to dislike healthier foods. High sugar intake during early childhood is a key contributor to obesity, and studies link excess sodium in childhood with later health problems.
By contrast, cow’s milk is high in essential nutrients like calcium, vitamin D, and other essential vitamins and nutrients.
Why do parents give their children toddler milk?
Manufacturers of toddler milk advertise these products as offering superior nutrients to regular cow’s milk, providing enhanced brain and immune development, and being supportive for growth in ways that are unavailable in cow’s milk or other food. However, these claims are unproven and not backed by science.
Marketers have used some of these strategies to convince parents to purchase toddler milk products for their children:
- Dubious nutritional and health claims, such as unsubstantiated claims about benefits like improved brain function, immune support, and healthy digestion.
- Misleading packaging that’s designed to closely resemble infant formula because of similar branding, colors, and shapes. This can influence parents to believe the products are comparable or that the toddler milk is a necessary “next step” after baby formula.
- Perception of necessity to create the impression that toddler milks provide essential nutrients that children cannot get from plain milk or other healthy foods.
- Exploiting parent anxiety is a common strategy for marketers. Their messaging targets common parent worries (especially new parents), such as a child’s growth or cognitive development. Offering a product like toddler milk as a way to ensure their child is receiving proper nutrition would be a standard tactic used by marketers of these products.
- Targeted marketing, or specific objectives for sales in certain communities.
Parents in a focus group related to a study that tracked sales and advertising dollars for the infant and toddler formula industry said they were convinced by labels that toddler milk would provide numerous immune-boosting and brain-nourishing additives.
One Connecticut mother who participated in the study said the marketing “does a really good job of playing to a mother’s fears,” a Hartford, Connecticut, mother told Harris and her team in 2022. “Because who wants to feel like, I didn’t give my child the thing to support their immune system? Or they’re not going to have brain or eye development if I don’t give them this.”
Legal claims against toddler milk manufacturers
Some of the legal claims raised against the manufacturers of toddler milk products include:
- Misleading health claims. It’s not uncommon for manufacturers to make unsubstantiated claims about various health benefits, like brain development, immunity, or positive behavioral changes. This would be considered false advertising under consumer protection laws.
- Inadequate ingredient disclosure. Some of these products contain high levels of added sugar and sodium, both of which are not recommended for toddlers and often aren’t clearly noted on product labels.
- Lack of FDA review. Toddler milks are often in the same supermarket aisle as baby formula, and the packaging is designed to appear similar to baby formula. However, the toddler milks are not reviewed by the FDA, in contrast with baby formula, which is FDA approved.
- Unnecessary product. The AAP and other experts claim these products are not necessary or recommended for a toddler’s diet.
- Financial cost. The advertising can convince a parent to purchase toddler milk, which is more costly than cow’s milk, but does not provide any nutritional advantage.
Product liability and misleading advertising
Product liability law typically allows an injured consumer to file a lawsuit under one of three theories of liability:
- Design defect, which is when the product is inherently unsafe.
- Manufacturing defect, when the product would be safe except for a mistake that happened during the manufacturing process
- Failure to warn/marketing defect, which is when inadequate warnings or misleading advertising make the product dangerous to use.
Misleading advertising lawsuits
Misleading advertising is the issue in the toddler milk claims. Under the failure to warn/marketing defect theory, if a product’s advertising falsely claims health or nutritional benefits, or omits risks, that can form the basis of a marketing defect claim.
For example, toddler milk was advertised as “necessary for brain development” when no medical evidence supports it. Parents may purchase it believing it’s essential, and the child could suffer health consequences (i.e., obesity, diabetes from added sugars).
Negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation could also be considered. Plaintiffs can allege that the company knowingly or recklessly misrepresented facts about nutrition. This doesn’t always require physical harm; in some states, economic harm (paying for a product that isn’t what was promised) can be enough.
In addition, many states have consumer protection laws that allow consumers to file lawsuits over false and deceptive advertising. When physical harm is alleged, these claims are typically paired with product liability.
This the basis for these toddler milk lawsuits, and similar lawsuits have been filed related to weight-loss supplements, energy drinks, and “healthy” food claims (i.e. foods labeled “healthy,” “immune-boosting,” or “low sugar”).
Toddler milk lawsuit
The attorney who filed the lawsuit, Andrew Rainer, said, “[t]oddler milks are expensive, nutritionally unnecessary and may be harmful to children due to added sugars… [t]he products are labeled ‘Stage 3,’ implying they are the next nutritionally recommended product for purchase after infant formula, which is numbered ‘Stage 1’ and transitional formula, which is numbered ‘Stage 2.’… We are suing to get Abbott to change their advertising and pay compensation to all the parents who purchased these products as a result of Abbott’s misleading, unlawful and unfair marketing practices.”
Abbott’s response:
Abbott has said that its toddler milks are properly labeled and the claims in the lawsuit are without merit. This is not the first lawsuit related to toddler nutrition products; there have been previous lawsuits related to PediaSure, which is typically used as a nutritional supplement for malnourished children. The jury sided with Abbott in that claim.
In September 2024, a class action lawsuit was filed in California against Abbott for its marketing of Go & Grow 360 Total Care Toddler Drink by Similac. Another California lawsuit was filed in December of that year that alleged that the amount of added sugar in Go & Grow 360 is equivalent to the amount in half a can of soda. This lawsuit was dismissed, but the claims can be resubmitted to the court in the future.
Current status of the toddler milk lawsuits
Although Abbott has said the claims are “without merit”, the lawsuit remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. No outcome or settlement has been reported yet.
This and earlier lawsuits highlight a pattern of concern regarding transition formulas (labeled “stage 3” etc.) that imply a necessity or health benefit not backed by regulation or nutritional standards.
Misleading advertising and false nutritional claims most often come into product liability cases under the failure to warn/marketing defect theory. Even if the product itself isn’t inherently defective, if it’s sold under false or deceptive claims that create risks to consumers, courts may hold the manufacturer liable.
#Toddler #Milk #Lawsuits #Misleading #Advertising