Restricting Infant Formula Marketing in Australia

Closes 10 Apr 2026

This service needs cookies enabled.

Policy Options

This section outlines 3 options for consultation:

  • Option 1: Status quo – no regulation;
  • Option 2: Australian Government legislation aligned with the scope of the former MAIF Agreement; and
  • Option 3: Australian Government legislation aligned with the scope of the former MAIF Agreement, plus controls on retailer and/or toddler milk marketing.

For each, a high-level description of the policy is provided along with a summary of relevant costs and benefits. More details are availble on pages 19 - 22 in the Discussion Paper. 

Related information

The Australian Government’s Policy Impact Analysis Framework requires assessment of all feasible options, including voluntary and quasi-regulatory approaches. However, the Government has already announced its intention to introduce mandatory controls on infant formula marketing. This follows the cessation of the former voluntary MAIF Agreement. This means that non-regulatory options have limited relevance and will not be progressed for detailed analysis. Option 1 (status quo) is retained as good regulatory practice and to provide a baseline for comparison. Under the status quo, no regulations govern infant formula marketing, enabling an assessment of the relative costs and benefits of proposed mandatory controls.

25. What are the advantages and disadvantages of Option 1? Please explain your reasoning.

Option 1: Status Quo – No regulation

Description

This option would see no regulations on infant formula marketing introduced. Marketing practices outside food labels would be determined by individual company policies. As per current regulations, potential breaches of the Food Standards Code would be dealt with by the state and territory government agencies with responsibility for food regulation, and breaches of Australian Consumer Law would be handled by the ACCC.

More detailed information can be found on pages 19 and 20 of the Discussion Paper. 

Costs

  • Global losses from unrealised breastfeeding benefits are estimated above US$300 billion annually, with potential Australian losses up to AU$5 billion per year.
  • Without regulation, opportunities to reduce inappropriate infant formula marketing—and improve breastfeeding rates—are not realised.
  • Costs would arise from increased morbidity and mortality, poorer education outcomes, and reduced productivity.
  • While many companies currently follow previous voluntary guidelines, lack of regulation may lead to increased marketing, further reducing breastfeeding rates.
  • Financial impacts fall on:
    • Families through higher healthcare costs and reduced productivity.
    • Governments through increased health system expenditure and productivity losses.

Benefits

  • No additional compliance costs for industry.
  • Companies can market new products freely, supporting innovation and product development.
  • Regulatory certainty and a consistent environment create a level playing field for all market participants.
  • Competitive benefits for businesses, including new entrants, due to greater marketing flexibility.
  • Government cost savings from not developing or enforcing new legislation.
  • Potential for increased consumer access to product information.
  • Continued or increased collaboration between industry and healthcare professionals.

 

26. Do you have data on the costs and benefits associated with Option 1 that could contribute to a cost-benefit analysis to inform the policy development process?
27. What are the advantages and disadvantages of Option 2? Please explain your reasoning.

Option 2: Australian Government legislation aligned with the scope of the former MAIF Agreement

Description 

This option would see Australian Government legislation/regulations developed to restrict infant formula marketing in Australia. The policy would cover the full scope and all provisions of the previous MAIF Agreement. It is anticipated the legislation will prohibit manufacturers and importers of infant formula products from advertising infant formula to the public via all media and settings that may be used to market and advertise these products.

Under this option, the legislation would also: 

  • prohibit direct marketing by manufacturers and importers of infant formula to health professionals,
  • prohibit the provision of free samples and related utensils,
  • mandate the disclosure of conflicts of interests relating to manufacturers and importers by health professionals,
  • prohibit the inclusion of sales targets and bonuses for employees of infant formula manufacturers and importers, and
  • prohibit employees of infant formula manufacturers, and importers from conducting educational functions to pregnant women and parents of infants and young children.

Costs and benefits would impact governments, industry and families. 

More information can be found on pages 20 and 21 of the Discussion Paper. 

Costs

  • Government: Costs for developing, implementing, and enforcing legislation (e.g., consultations, drafting, training, systems changes, compliance monitoring).
  • Industry: Training costs, cost of penalties for non-compliance, potential profit and employment impacts, and competition impacts for new market entrants.
  • Families: Reduced access to information from companies and potentially fewer new or improved products.

Benefits

  • Government: lower health system costs and increased productivity
  • Industry: a level and fair marketing environment 
  • Families: less exposure to potentially misleading information, reduced industry influence on healthcare professionals in turn leading to increased breastfeeding rates 

 

28. Do you have data on the costs and benefits associated with Option 2 that could contribute to a cost-benefit analysis to inform the policy development process?
29. What are the advantages and disadvantages of Option 3? Please explain your reasoning.

Option 3: Australian Government legislation aligned with the scope of the former MAIF Agreement, plus controls on retailer and/or toddler milk marketing

Description

This option would expand the scope of legislation in Option 2 to include retailer marketing and/or toddler milks. Expansion of scope to include retailers and toddler milk products would more closely align with the WHO Code and reduce the potential for regulatory loopholes, with the primary difference being exclusion of bottles and teats. This option would address the concerns regarding the scope of the former MAIF Agreement and provide greater assurance that families are receiving information on infant feeding from impartial, evidence-based sources free of vested interests. While the WHO Code captures short term price promotions, there may be a case to exempt such conduct due to cost of living pressures.

More information is available on pages 21 and 22 of the Discussion Paper.

Costs

In addition to the costs identified for Option 2, costs for Option 3 include:

  • Government: additional monitoring for extra in-scope products and/or businesses (i.e. retailers)
  • Industry: reduced toddler milk marketing may result in reduced sales and advertising revenue 
  • Families: potential for reduced incentive for new product development and innovation

Benefits

  • Government: complete market coverage and less loopholes in policy, resulting in further reductions in marketing and increased health system savings 
  • Families: further reduced potential for misleading information, increased breastfeeding rates, reduced costs 
30. Do you have data on the costs and benefits associated with Option 3 that could contribute to a cost-benefit analysis to inform the policy development process?
31. Which is your preferred Policy Option?