By Naomi Bromberg Bar-Yam, PhD
Formula companies use influencers, social media partnerships, and targeted online marketing to shape feeding decisions. This strategy did not begin with Instagram or TikTok. For decades, infant formula companies have sought partnerships not only with individuals, but with hospitals, health professionals, scientific organizations, and trusted public institutions. The current partnership between Nestlé and a United Nations-affiliated institute is part of that much longer history.
Nestlé and the United Nations University (Institute for Water, Environment & Health) have launched the World Food Academy 4 Sustainable Food Systems. In response, the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and La Leche League International (LLLI) have penned an open letter, signed by hundreds of public health experts, researchers, clinicians, advocates, and civil society organizations from multiple fields calling on the United Nations University to end its partnership with Nestlé.
A Long History of Concern
It is no surprise that IBFAN initiated this effort (IBFAN is a global network that monitors formula marketing and advocates for breastfeeding protections worldwide). The breastfeeding community has been confronting conflicts of interest and corporate overreach in infant and child health for decades. For us, this is not a new conversation.
Breastfeeding advocates have raised concerns about the influence of infant formula manufacturers on health professionals, hospitals, scientific and medical education and research, and public policy for decades. These concerns became visible globally in the 1970s through the international boycott of Nestlé products.
The Nestlé boycott, begun in 1977, was launched in response to aggressive and unethical formula marketing practices, particularly in low-resource settings where lack of safe water dramatically increased the dangers associated with formula feeding. It brought global attention to these practices.
That movement also led to one of the most important public health agreements in infant feeding history: The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (often called “the WHO Code”), adopted by the World Health Organization in 1981, and revised and updated many times since.
What Makes a Public-Private Partnership Ethical?
This does not mean corporations can never participate in public health efforts. It does mean that partnerships involving corporations whose profits depend on influencing feeding practices, nutrition systems, or public policy require extraordinary caution.
The issue goes beyond Nestlé’s funding educational activities or sustainability initiatives. It is the extent to which partnerships between powerful corporations and trusted public institutions undermine scientific independence, public trust, and the interests of the communities they are meant to serve. The signers of the open letter argue that such partnerships create an inherent conflict of interest.
Public-private partnerships are ethically complex and require careful safeguards. They require:
- Transparency;
- Clear conflict-of-interest protections;
- Ongoing independent third-party oversight and review; and
- Involvement of and accountability to the communities affected.
Without those protections, partnerships risk becoming vehicles for “bluewashing,” in which association with respected public or international institutions enhances corporate legitimacy while obscuring ethical concerns.
Why Breastfeeding Advocates Spoke Out
The open letter reflects decades of work examining how commercial influence can shape health systems, professional education, parental decision-making, and public policy. Advocates have long argued that infant and child health policy must be guided first by independent science and the public interest, especially when corporate profits are involved.
A Broader Public Health Question
But the current controversy is about more than one partnership. It applies not only to infant feeding, but to broader questions about public health governance, environmental sustainability, and institutional integrity.
It is about how international institutions entrusted with protecting public welfare can maintain independence from industries whose financial interests do not prioritize and often conflict with the health of children, families, and communities.
The breastfeeding movement has spent decades examining this issue; it is still doing so.
The controversy also raises broader questions about how public institutions, non-governmental organizations, and corporations should structure partnerships ethically and transparently—questions that deserve deeper public discussion.
Support Independent Public Health Institutions
Please review and sign the open letter calling for termination of the Nestlé–UNU partnership.
Naomi Bromberg Bar-Yam, PhD, has been working in maternal and child health for over 35 years as an educator, researcher, advocate, and writer. In addition to serving on the board of Massachusetts Breastfeeding Coalition, she is past president of the Human Milk Banking Association of North America (HMBANA) and is the founding director emerita of Mothers’ Milk Bank Northeast, which provides safe donor milk to hospitals and families throughout the northeastern US. Learn more about her on her LactSpeak profile.
Comments are closed