A recent move by India’s leading dairy brand, Amul, to launch a liquid infant milk formula has come under sharp criticism from public health activists. They allege that the product violates the Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, commonly known as the IMS Act, which governs the marketing and sale of infant food products in India.
The IMS Act, enacted in 1992 and amended in 2003, strictly prohibits the promotion and advertisement of infant milk substitutes for babies below two years of age. The law aims to protect and promote breastfeeding, which is widely recognized as the healthiest and most natural source of nutrition for infants. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months is essential for the optimal growth and development of infants.
Activists argue that the promotion of Amul’s liquid infant formula could mislead new mothers into believing that formula milk is an equivalent or better substitute for breast milk. They claim this not only violates the provisions of the IMS Act but also poses potential public health risks by discouraging breastfeeding practices. Reports indicate that the product is being promoted in a manner that may indirectly influence consumer choices through online platforms and retail packaging.
Several health organizations and child welfare groups have submitted complaints to the Ministry of Health and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), urging regulatory bodies to investigate the matter and take immediate action. They have demanded that the product either be withdrawn from the market or its promotion halted until it is verified that it complies with existing regulations.
In defense, Amul has stated that the product is compliant with national food safety standards and caters to a specific nutritional need. The company claims that the formula is intended for infants who cannot be breastfed for medical reasons or under doctor’s advice. However, critics argue that even such products must be carefully marketed without violating the principles of the IMS Act.
Legal experts note that the IMS Act prohibits direct or indirect promotion of infant milk substitutes, including through packaging, branding, and use of health claims. The current controversy has prompted discussions on whether existing guidelines are being effectively enforced and whether stricter monitoring is needed.
Public health experts emphasize that while infant formulas can be necessary in certain situations, they should not be promoted at the expense of breastfeeding. The introduction of such products must be balanced with responsible marketing and clear regulatory oversight to protect the health of infants.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Amul’s liquid infant formula highlights the need for vigilant enforcement of laws protecting infant nutrition. As the government reviews the complaints, the case underscores the critical balance between industry innovation and public health safeguards.
