Chapter Four - Breast Is Best (And They Knew It)

CHAPTER FOUR

Breast Is Best (And They Knew It)

BY THE 1970S, the evidence was overwhelming.

Breastfeeding wasn’t just a cultural tradition. It was a biological system. Breast milk delivered antibodies, enzymes, hormones, and immune support that formula couldn’t replicate. It reduced infant mortality, protected against infections, and strengthened mother-child bonds. In short: breastfed babies were healthier.

And Nestlé knew it.

The company had access to the same studies as public health agencies. Its own internal researchers had studied infant nutrition for decades. It sponsored pediatric conferences. It employed dietitians and medical consultants. Nestlé wasn’t operating in ignorance. It was operating in defiance of consensus.

Because breastfeeding, while ideal, wasn’t profitable.

Formula was.

And the formula business depended on habits, not just biology, but behavior. The longer a mother breastfed, the less likely she was to switch. But if you could disrupt that behavior early, in the hospital, with free samples and professional endorsements, you could reshape infant feeding altogether.

That’s exactly what Nestlé did.

In many hospitals across parts of the Global South, new mothers were handed formula samples within hours of giving birth. Nurses, sometimes incentivized by Nestlé, recommended the product directly. As the mother’s natural milk production slowed due to lack of nursing, her reliance on formula increased.

This wasn’t accidental. It was strategy.

While Nestlé framed it as “choice,” it often wasn’t. Many mothers weren’t given full information. Some believed formula was superior, a Western, modern upgrade over “primitive” traditions. Others assumed formula was required. The marketing blurred the line between medicine and sales.

Meanwhile, health agencies were sounding alarms.

The World Health Organization, UNICEF, and countless independent studies were pushing the same message: breast is best. Especially in areas without clean water. Especially where food insecurity made formula unaffordable. Especially where infections spread easily and healthcare access was limited.

Breast milk was safe, free, and locally produced. Formula was not.

Nestlé pushed back. It said the product was safe when used properly. It said it supported breastfeeding where possible. It said mothers deserved options. But the company’s actions told a different story.

It continued to advertise. It continued to offer samples. It continued to lobby governments against strict labeling laws. In some countries, it fought regulations that required formula cans to include breastfeeding warnings. In others, it quietly influenced hospital protocols behind the scenes.

The company wasn’t alone, other formula makers did the same. But Nestlé was the biggest. The most visible. The one whose name came to represent the entire fight.

The controversy wasn’t about formula existing. It was about how it was sold, to whom, and at what cost.

By the time Nestlé began publicly promoting breastfeeding in its marketing materials, the damage was done. Trust had eroded. The boycotts had grown. The phrase “Nestlé kills babies” had become an international protest slogan.

They weren’t being accused of making poison.

They were being accused of marketing a substitute as if it were equal, despite knowing the medical consensus said otherwise.