Restricting Infant Formula Marketing in Australia

The MAIF Review noted uncertainty around the prevalence and nature of marketing in the retail environment, and a need for evidence on the impacts of including retailers in a regulatory setting. It was recommended the department conduct a review of the scale and impact of inappropriate marketing of infant formula by supermarkets and pharmacies to determine whether retailers should be included in any future regulatory framework.

In 2025 the Department contracted Nous Group to review the scale and impact of retailer marketing on infant formula. Findings from the review suggested retailer marketing of infant formula is common in Australia, both physical and online. A limited survey conducted as part of the review found most consumers 65% (n=79) had seen some form of retailer marketing of infant formula in the last 6 months. Further, it found that people were often unable to distinguish between marketing by manufacturers versus retailers.

Price promotion occurred frequently from 2019 to 2024, with average reductions between 11% to 20% (Nous Group, 2025). This may be influential, with nearly 1 in 3 people who were expecting a child or had a child under 12 months saying they were greatly, somewhat or slightly influenced to purchase infant formula by both general retailer marketing and in-store price promotions. This influence was also high amongst those who were currently, or had previously, used infant formula, with much less influence seen amongst those who did not have, or were not expecting, a child, or had never used infant formula products. It is important to note the survey sample size was small and the response may include people who are already using infant formula products.

A systematic review conducted across 28 countries found price promotion was the most prevalent type of marketing used by retailers (over 40%) (Topothai et al., 2024). Between 2021-22 and 2024-25, the MAIF Complaints Committee received 17 complaints regarding infant formula marketing by retailers. These were all deemed out of scope as retailers were not included in the scope of the agreement.

Nous Group’s review of the scale and impact of retailer marketing of infant formula outlined regulatory options available to Government. This included the status quo, or no regulation, through to full regulation – with options for both total alignment with the WHO Code, and an option that excludes price promotion. It was noted that including retailer marketing in regulations could reduce exposure to infant formula marketing with associated public health benefits, but this would also increase industry compliance costs.

While full regulation would better align with the WHO Code, the absence of price competition may potentially lead to price increases, resulting in equity impacts for those relying on infant formula. Conversely, while full regulation with the exception of price promotion does not fully align with the WHO Code, price competition may lead to reduced pricing of products within scope, and may incentivise product innovation (Nous Group, 2025). Most industry representatives interviewed as part of the review were agnostic towards inclusion of retailers within the scope of infant formula marketing regulations provided price promotion was not included.

Toddler milks are generally marketed for consumption by children aged from 1-3 years and usually made from powdered milk, vegetable oils, added sugars and sweeteners and vitamins and minerals (Baker et al., 2016; McCann et al., 2021). The WHO has stated that toddler milks are unnecessary for the optimal growth and development of children and is unsuitable when used as a breastmilk replacement from 6 months of age onwards (WHO, 2013). The Australian Dietary Guidelines do not recommend the use of toddler milks, with exclusive breastfeeding recommended until around 6 months of age, when solid foods are introduced, and continuation of breastfeeding until 12 months or longer if desired.

Toddler milks are common in Australia. A 2019 study of four supermarket chains making up 80% of the Australian market and one pharmacy representing 25% of market share identified 32 toddler milk products from 15 different brands (McCann et al., 2021). Given data from 16 large high- and middle-income countries found toddler milks to be the fastest growing category of breastmilk substitutes (WHO, 2017), it is likely the number of toddler milk products in Australia has since increased. Sales data analysed by Ching et al. (2025) shows toddler milk sales have increased from less than 2,000 tonnes in 2005 to around 15,000 tonnes in 2024. While consumption data are limited, Wilcox et al., (2021) found 31.5% of mothers surveyed in Australian capital cities reported feeding their children toddler milks once or more per week.

Toddler milk labelling will be considered further by FSANZ through proposal P1066 – Review of young child formula, therefore only non-label marketing and advertising are relevant to the current policy discussion. It is also important to note that the objective of including toddler milk in any new marketing specific policy would be to reduce consumer confusion and potential proxy marketing of infant formula products with the aim of increasing breastfeeding rates, rather than reducing toddler milk consumption.

The MAIF Review concluded there was insufficient evidence to justify expanding the scope of products included under the MAIF Agreement to include toddler milks. It was however noted that toddler milk products may lead to consumer confusion and serve to cross-promote infant formula, and that including toddler milk marketing within regulations would likely have a positive cost:benefit ratio.

Stakeholder consultations through the MAIF Review revealed opposing views. Many public health stakeholders highlighted concerns about toddler milks serving as a cross-promotion tool due to similar packaging to infant formula product lines. This is supported by findings from several studies showing that consumers often cannot differentiate between toddler milks and infant formulas (Romo-Palafox et al., 2020; Berry et al., 2012; Richter et al., 2024), product packaging influences perceptions of product quality (Pereira-Kotze et al., 2022; Horwood et al., 2022), and toddler milks may act as ‘proxy advertising’ or cross-promotion for infant formula products (Richter et al., 2024; Thatcher, 2022; Berry et al., 2010).

The ACCC’s 2025 determination noted exclusion of toddler milks from the MAIF Agreement likely results in cross-promotion of infant formula, undermining the potential benefit of the agreement. Changes to the Food Standards Code resulting from proposal P1028 – Infant Formula implemented in September 2024 seek to address the issues of cross-promotion and similar packaging of product lines, but do not extend to other forms of marketing.

In contrast, industry stakeholders consulted through the MAIF Review were concerned an expansion of the MAIF Agreement scope to include toddler milks could negatively impact competition and product innovation, leading to a reduction in incentives to invest in these areas.

Global research indicates a shift towards toddler milk marketing by infant formula companies (Topothai et al. 2024). This was observed in research on breastmilk substitute marketing in Australian print media from 1950-2010, which found that while infant formula companies had reduced infant formula marketing in response to the WHO Code, this was often replaced with marketing for toddler milks (Smith & Blake, 2013).

The ADM+S Australian Ad Observatory collection of Facebook advertisements donated by approximately 1,200 Australian adults in 2022 included 21 different ads for formula brands: 5 for infant formula, 11 for toddler formula, 4 for kids’ formula products and 1 for a brand only. Advertisements were shown up to 4 times each, with a total of 36 impressions for the 21 advertisements. Data collected in 2025 from Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok and YouTube from a smaller sample of 127 participants showed around 1 in 4 people observed a total of 122 advertisements from formula brands or retailers advertising breastmilk substitutes. This included 1 infant formula advertisement and 115 advertisements for toddler milks and 6 brand only advertisements (Parker et al., 2025). These observations provide further evidence of the trend towards increased toddler milk advertising.

Toddler milk marketing practices appear to be similar to the practices used to market infant formula. The scoping review by Richter et al., (2024) discussed the use of a range of advertising strategies such as the frequent use of health claims and images of babies/toddlers, rational and emotional messaging, and branding/slogans in several international studies.

In their systematic review, Topothai et al., (2024) found widespread advertisements of unregulated formula products around the world, especially of toddler milks. They also found several studies indicating cross-promotion strategies such as similar branding and product design were commonly used to indirectly promote regulated products (Topothai et al., 2024).

Australian and international research has shown pregnant women and parents are often unable to differentiate between advertisements for toddler milk and infant formula, and tend to believe the health claims and marketing messages presented in the ads (Berry, Jones & Iverson, 2010; Berry, Jones & Iverson, 2012; Berry et al., 2011; Cattaneo et al., 2015; Richter et al., 2024).

A study assessing the effectiveness of breastmilk marketing restrictions showed restrictions on media promotion has been generally successful for regulated products, however marketing of unregulated products such as toddler milks generally continued often with similar branding and product design to the regulated product (Topothai et al., 2024).

Bottles and teats are commonly used to feed infants and young children, for both expressed breastmilk and infant formula (Theurich et al., 2024). Globally, the infant feeding bottle market was estimated to be valued at nearly $3.5 billion in 2022 and is expected to grow to around $5.5 billion by 2030 (Grant View Research, 2022). The WHO Code includes provisions on the inappropriate marketing of equipment that can be used for formula feeding, including bottles and teats. Information and distribution of equipment/resources that may be seen as encouraging the use of breastmilk substitutes or bottle-feeding is considered marketing/promotion under the WHO Code. Bottles and teats were not within the scope of the former MAIF Agreement.

The Australian Infant Feeding Guidelines state there is no evidence that teats assist with problems such as colic (AIFG, 2012). A German study analysing the marketing of feeding bottles and teats identified common marketing claims included ‘equivalency to breastfeeding’, ‘disease prevention’ and ‘naturalness’ (Theurich et al., 2024). Other claims were around infant autonomy, mechanics of breastfeeding, claims by parents, and endorsements by health professionals (Theurich et al., 2024). Similarly, a 2025 UK study found that claims related to the prevention and reduction of nipple confusion and bottle refusal, aiding combination feeding, mimicking the breast/nipple and/or the physiology of breastfeeding, aiding latching, high teat acceptance, and positively impacting breastfeeding (Maxwell et al., 2025).

There is currently limited evidence on the marketing of bottles and teats in Australia. Noting limitations in data availability, the Department is proposing not to include feeding paraphernalia such as bottles and teats in the impact analysis and legislation.