During the EB debate on Maternal and Young Child Nutrition about 50 governments and NGOs called for more protection of breastfeeding, highlighted conflicts of interest and stressed the need to bring the International Code and last year’s Resolution 78.18 on digital marketing into legislation. Cross-border social media promotion of commercial formulas contradicts evidence-based health advice and exacerbates food safety risks. Online sales enable contaminated, unregistered products to enter countries where diagnosis and treatment may not be available and parents may not see the recall notices.
* * *
WHO SPEEDS UP ACTION ON CONTAMINATION OF COMMERCIAL FORMULAS
WHO 158th Executive Board (EB). 2-7th February, 2026, WHO HQ Geneva
In response to calls from WHO Member States, IBFAN, ILCA and health advocates about the recent crisis of contaminated commercial formulas, WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) have begun the process to update their risk assessments and scientific advice (1, 2,3) Now nearly 20 years old, this advice is not adequate to prevent contamination with spore-forming pathogens and bacterial toxins at the centre of the Nestlé (4) and ByHeart (5) outbreaks in the last three months. Nestlé’s recall of infant, follow-on, pre-term and specialised formulas, from over 60 countries in January is described as the biggest in the history of the company and the recall has spread to Danone, Lactalis and other companies. The baby food industry is now said to be in crisis, with judicial inquiries into the deaths of babies in France and lawsuits about recall delays and lack of transparency.
The European Union is a major exporter of commercial formula globally, and on 2nd February the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA)published an urgent scientific risk assessment in response to an appeal from the European Commission.(6) In December 2025, in response to a request from IBFAN, the Codex Food Hygiene Committee agreed to update its Guidance.(7) However, because Codex processes usually take years, IBFAN called for an emergency World Health Assembly Resolution, not only to speed things up, but to address wider issues, the systemic failures in surveillance and crisis management and the continuing misleading promotion.(8) Despite facing unprecedented funding and staff cuts due to the withdrawal of the USA, WHO demonstrated its importance and willingness to tackle global health challenges by emphasising the need to start the new work straight away.(1)
During the EB debate on Maternal and Young Child Nutrition about 50 governments and NGOs called for more protection of breastfeeding, highlighted conflicts of interest and stressed the need to bring the International Code and last year’s Resolution 78.18 on digital marketing into legislation. Cross-border social media promotion of commercial formulas contradicts evidence-based health advice and exacerbates food safety risks. Online sales enable contaminated, unregistered products to enter countries where diagnosis and treatment may not be available and parents may not see the recall notices.(9)
Norway, Burundi and Belgium specifically mentioned the contamination crisis and called for food safety surveillance to be independent, transparent and free from commercial interference. IBFAN also asked for whistle-blowers to be listened to rather than punished. For too long manufacturing systems have relied on voluntary agreements, trust and sparse independent government oversight. (10)
Yasmine Motarjemi formerly WHO’s Food Safety Senior Officer (1990-2000) and later Nestlé’s Global Director of Food Safety and Assistant Vice-President (2000 to 2010), became a whistle-blower after repeatedly raising concerns about Nestlé’s mismanagement of food safety. In the time she was in post at Nestlé, her department of food quality, the cockpit of the company, was never inspected by government authorities, not even when food incidents occurred. (11) In the Swiss court and in her book “Ce que l’Empire Nestlé vous Cache” (What the Nestlé empire is hiding from you), Yasmine has reported that Nestlé had linked the bonuses of technical managers to product recalls (a practice forbidden in Article 8.1 of the International Code). Such mindsets can influence decision-making in the prevention and management of food safety incidents.(12)
In a world increasingly governed by economic interests, the right of all people to the highest attainable standard of health, a principle at the heart of WHO’s Constitution, the EB demonstrated the importance of WHO, the word’s highest food policy setting body. One of WHO’s core functions is to propose conventions, agreements and regulations. WHO’s international Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, adopted in 1981, was the world’s first global consumer protection tool. It has been updated and strengthened by over 20 Resolutions, and adopted at least in part in 146 countries. It has saved millions of children’s lives.(13).
Since commercial formulas can be the sole source of nutrition for babies who are not breastfed during a critical period of their growth and development, IBFAN will continue to advocate for a new WHA Resolution for the 79th World Health Assembly that will take place in 18-23rd May 2026.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Main source:
https://www.babymilkaction.org/archives/50540
Other references:
(1). Call-for-experts-and-data-on-microbiological-risk-assessment-on-powdered-formulae-for-infants-and-young-children 6 February 2026 Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meeting on Microbiological Risk Assessment (JEMRA). The 2005 World Health Assembly Resolution WHA58.32 stressed, for the first time, the need for labels to warn parents and caregivers about the intrinsic contamination of powdered infant formula. WHO/FAO Guidelines on Safe Preparation, Storage and Handling of Powdered Infant Formula (2007) CODE OF HYGIENIC PRACTICE FOR POWDERED FORMULAE FOR INFANTS AND YOUNG CHILDREN CXC 66 – 2008
(2) Contamination: Contamination of formula products is commonplace, ranging from microbes in powdered formulas, insect parts, pesticides, to heavy metals such as lead, aluminium, cadmium. Historically there has been intentional adulteration of melamine and leakages of packaging chemicals has prompted numerous product recalls. Chemical additives to stabilize, emulsify, thicken, regulate acidity, and act as anti-oxidants are all “permitted” by Codex Alimentarius standards, some at regulated levels and others according to “good manufacturing practices”, with their safety declared not by independent and convincing science but on the basis of political consensus and claims of “history of safe use.” There is an inherent ethical difficulty in testing additives on infants below the age of 12 weeks. Summary of formula recalls since 1982. Marsha Walker.
(3) Optional Ingredients: The arachidonic acid (ARA), the source of the contamination in the Nestlé formula, is permitted as an optional, rather than mandatory ingredient in the EU. where by law first infant formula must contain all the mandatory ingredients and be nutritionally equivalent. ARA is naturally present in breastmilk alongside thousands of other ingredients that are not present in commercial formula. Companies use the addition of Industrially synthesised ingredients such as ARA (often derived from fungi) to justify premium prices and promote formulas as being ‘closer to breastmilk’ ignoring the fact that breastmilk is a totally different living biological environment, containing co-enzymes that enable the fats to work optimally. In 2011 EU Parliamentarians debated whether to allow clams for optional ingredients such as DHA and ARA. IBFAN’s briefing helped to disallow such claims. 10 Reasons to stop this DHA claim. The Politics Show 2011
(4) Nestlé’s credibility questioned as formulas recalled in 60+ countries over contamination risk IBFAN January 2026.
“Even if Formulaid (DHA/AHA) had no benefit we think that it would be widely incorporated into most formulas as a marketing tool and to allow companies to promote their formula as ‘closest to human milk’.” Hambrecht & Quist Spot Report on the Martek Bio-sciences Corporation in 1996 – when synthetic DHA was first developed commercially.
(5) ByHeart & Botulism: serious food safety failings expose online marketing risks December 2026
(6) European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) urgent scientific risk assessment to determine what exposure levels pose a danger to infants. Rapid risk assessment on acute reference dose (ARfD) of cereulide in infants and information on acute consumption of infant formulae European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 4 February 2026 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2026.9941Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
(7). Codex Alimentarius Commission, the UN standard-setting body whose Guidelines and standards form the basis of national legislation. (See Note 10)
(8) IBFAN is calling for a Resolution to:(1) speed up the updating of the 20 year-old Codex and WHO Guidelines that do not address Bacillus cereus, Clostridium botulinum and other heat-resistant spore-forming bacteria, and toxins produced by them (2) ensure that national food safety surveillance and verification is independent, transparent and free from commercial interference and that whistle-blowers are listened to; (3) ensure parents are better informed through clear labelling and family support in line with WHO marketing recommendations and WHA78.18 on the regulation of digital marketing; (4) ensure health facilities follow Baby Friendly recommendations, 2 and provide mandatory paid maternity protection and leave. The International Lactation Consultant Association (ILCA) the International Pharmaceutical Students’ Federation (IPSF) and the International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA) supported the call for better maternity protection and paid mandatory maternity leave.
(9) Contaminated US-made ByHeart formulas resulted in 51 infants being hospitalised with botulism in the USA and ByHeart formulas were shipped to 21 countries before they were recalled in November 2025. ByHeart claimed that its products had undergone ‘rigorous testing, going above and beyond what is required’ and are ‘filled with ingredients backed by breast milk science in every scoop’ misleading parents and instilling unquestioning trust in the product.
(10) Codex discussions demonstrate that self-regulation is embedded and that governments are allowed to choose who does food safety verification. Codex CCFH55 report:“An Observer reiterated that in their view, trade associations should not be included among the options for competent bodies to undertake specific verification activities in relation to the industry’s process control systems as this could result in industry verifying its own compliance. It was emphasized that verification should be conducted by independent entities, such as academia or professional societies, to ensure credibility and impartiality.”
(11) Serious Food Safety Failings expose global health risks of unregulated online cross-border promotion. IBFAN webinar 21.1.26. Yasmine Motarjemi:The tale of three infant formula crises Elisabeth Sterken: Is Powdered Formula Safe? BMJ (2026). Formula milk: Experts demand tighter safety checks after contamination scare
(12) Article 8.1 of the International Code: In systems of sales incentives for marketing personnel, the volume of sales of products within the scope of this Code should not be included in the calculation of bonuses, nor should quotas be set specifically for sales of these products. This should not be understood to prevent the payment of bonuses based on the overall sales by a company of other products marketed by it.
(13) IBFAN’s collaboration with WHO and UNICEF for nearly 50 years led to the international Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes the world’s first global consumer protection tool, that has been updated and strengthened by 22 Resolutions and has saved millions of lives. According to the 2024 WHO UNICEF IBFAN Code Status Report,. “As of March 2024, a total of 146 WHO Members States, comprising 91% of all global annual births, have adopted legal measures to implement at least some of the provisions in the Code.
