Could the $100 billion/year baby formula market get tangled in Cali's

There are growing legal and public health debates about the role of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in chronic disease.

Several big money lawsuits in the U.S. are exploring whether multi billion dollar food manufacturers could be held liable for health harms linked to heavily processed products, and campaigners in the UK have also raised concerns about regulatory reform.

These cases are still evolving, but they signal a broader shift: ultra-processed food - often referred to as 'junk food' - is no longer just a nutrition issue. It is becoming a very concerning legal issue.

The classification most often referenced is the NOVA system, developed by Brazilian researcher Carlos Monteiro and frequently quoted by ultra-popular British/Ghanaian health influencer, Eddie Abbew.

Under NOVA, infant formula is categorised as an ultra-processed food because it is industrially formulated using extracted ingredients and additives. That classification has sparked discussion about whether the baby formula companies - currently selling about US$100 billion worth of baby formula each year (according to fortunebusinessinsights.com) - could face similar scrutiny to other UPF manufacturers.

However, infant formula occupies a uniquely complex space. Unlike snack foods or sugary fizzy drinks, baby formula is a necessary product for many families.

A small portion of mothers are physiologically unable to breastfeed.

Significantly, numerous mothers face structural barriers such as workplace constraints, medical complications, trauma, domestic violence or insufficient support.

For these families, safe, toxin free formula is essential. Because once a woman stops breastfeeding for a few weeks, her natural human milk generally dries up and unless she can access 'expressed breast milk' (EBM), or has the support to re-lactate, she has no choice but to feed her baby formula.

In the background, global marketing practices remain controversial. The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981, aimed to restrict the promotion of breast-milk substitutes. Critics argue that modern marketing tactics - including influencer campaigns and endorsements by celebrities that have limited knowledge - undermine breastfeeding and cheapen the Code.

Whether lawsuits targeting ultra-processed foods will extend to infant formula is uncertain.

Courts would likely weigh the role of formula against marketing conduct. Future legal action, if it occurs, would probably focus less on the product’s existence and more on marketing tactics by multi billion dollar formula businesses.

This is a nuanced issue.