Baby Formula “As Close to Mother’s Milk as We Can Get”, RFK Jr., HHS Secretary

Why this comforting phrase is scientifically absurd - and why it’s been fooling parents since the 1950s

When I heard HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. say they’re going to regulate baby formula companies so they’re “giving you something that is as close to mother’s milk as we can get,” I was unbelievably disappointed. Does he really believe this is meaningfully possible? And, how can our health leadership use a deceptive formula marketing slogan that’s been banned by the WHO?

As a leader, he wants to sound reassuring, helpful, even hopeful. But let’s look at the actual science. That phrase, repeated for decades by formula companies and now echoed at the highest levels of health policy, makes a complete mockery of the word “close.”

The Living Complexity of Breast Milk vs. the Powdered Substitute

Human breast milk isn’t just “nutrition.” It’s a dynamic, living biofluid that changes hour by hour, day by day, and feed by feed to meet your baby’s exact needs.

We’re talking roughly 2000+ bioactive components. Mere formula? A shelf-stable, ultra-processed powder or liquid made primarily from cow’s milk (or soy), with around 30–40 basic nutrients. The gap is fundamental.

Saying modern formula is “as close to mother’s milk as we can get” is like claiming the top of the Burj Khalifa (tallest building on earth) puts you “as close to touching the moon as possible.” You’re a bit closer than the sidewalk…but astronomically far from “touching the moon.” Or think of a realistic baby doll versus a living infant: same weight, similar features, but one is inert plastic and the other is a breathing, growing human with an entire internal ecosystem. The comparison is absurd: it can’t erase the vast biological gap between breast milk and formula.

Real Examples: What the Formula Tins and Ads Actually Say

Major brands lean heavily on variations of the same soothing, deceptive claim:

• Similac 360 Total Care is heavily marketed as providing “nutrition closest to breast milk,” with its blend of five HMOs “mimicking the prebiotic diversity in breast milk more closely than prior formulas.” Abbott promotes it as supporting immune function, digestion, and even developmental outcomes “comparable to those in breastfed infants.”

• Many Enfamil products (like Gentlease or NeuroPro lines) are described in ads and on websites as “closest to breast milk” or designed with ingredients “modeled after those in breast milk,” particularly their prebiotic blends and fats for brain development.

• You’ll also see softer but still suggestive language like “formulated to be close to breast milk,” “made with comfort proteins like those in breast milk,” or “helps make baby’s immune system more like the breastfed infant’s.” I mean seriously, what is a ‘comfort’ protein?

Even Indirect Comparisons Are Deceptive

Here’s the deeper issue: even when a brand avoids saying the exact words “closest to breast milk,” any comparison, however subtle, plants the idea that formula is meaningfully similar. Parents naturally assume the word “close” carries real meaning. We hear “modeled after,” “mimicking,” “comparable to,” or “designed like” and our minds fill in the blanks: this must be almost as good.

That assumption is inherently deceptive. It creates a false sense of equivalence where none exists biologically. Marketing experts know this. They count on parents’ desire to give their baby “the best” to bridge the enormous gap between a living, adaptive fluid and an ultra-processed powder. The result? Many parents feel reassured enough to choose formula without fully grasping how vast the differences truly are. It’s not just clever advertising; it totally undermines informed decision-making and the understanding that breast milk stands in a category all its own. This is deception.

The HMO Hype: Insignificant or No Benefit

Take the current star of formula marketing: human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs). Brands love to highlight their “5 HMOs” or “prebiotics structurally identical to those in breast milk.” It sounds impressive until you look at the numbers.

Breast milk contains over 200 different HMOs, with total concentrations typically ranging from about 5–15 g/L in mature milk (and up to 20+ g/L in colostrum).

In contrast, even the most “advanced” formulas contain 1 to 5 specific synthetic HMOs at much lower total levels (often around 1–5.75 g/L at most). That’s a fraction of the quantity and a tiny sliver of the diversity.

Why Does This Misleading Comparison Keep Getting Used?

Because formula companies are allowed to and it works to sell their product. Formula marketers have been leaning on “closest to breast milk” since the 1950s and 60s back when we knew shockingly little about breast milk’s complexity. We didn’t understand the human milk microbiome, the hundreds of HMOs, the stem cells, or the long-term programming effects on immunity, metabolism, and the brain.

Now we do know. Yet the marketing persists because, under current statutes, both breast milk and infant formula are simply classified as “food for infants” and even worse than that, formula is described as a ‘simulation’ of breastmilk. That legal definition allows companies to imply similarity without having to prove biological equivalence.

What Should We Actually Be Saying?

Improving formula safety by reducing heavy metals and contaminants? Absolutely worth doing. Updating nutrient standards after decades? Also good.

But let’s stop pretending that tweaks to a highly processed product, even adding a few synthetic HMOs, can make it meaningfully “close” to the irreplaceable living fluid designed by evolution for the human infant. The science doesn’t support that level of equivalence and the mind truly boggles at the suggestion.

Parents deserve honesty, not comforting analogies that collapse under scrutiny. Breast milk is in a category of its own. We should make the safest, cleanest version possible. But it is not, and cannot be, called “close to mother’s milk.”

How The Breastfeeding Foundation Is Tackling This and How You Can Help

This isn’t just a marketing problem, it’s a regulatory failure that needs fixing right now. The system is still built on 1950s-era assumptions and outdated rules. We advocate for banning formula marketing.

Here’s what has to change:

• Food Drug and Cosmetic Act: Section 201z - re define formula removing the comparisons to breastmilk and define breastmilk. We need updates to 21 CFR Part 107 (Infant Formula Labeling) along with Section 412 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 350a — the Infant Formula Act). The FDA’s own 2016 Draft Guidance on Substantiation for Structure/Function Claims currently excludes breast-milk comparison claims from rigorous review, treating them as non-structure/function statements. That loophole must close. Comparisons should either require the same high level of “competent and reliable scientific evidence” (randomized, controlled infant feeding trials) or be banned outright as inherently deceptive.

• FTC rules: Under Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 USC 45), which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in advertising, the FTC must step up enforcement and issue clear guidance that any suggestion of equivalence or “closeness” to breast milk is misleading given modern science.

At The Breastfeeding Foundation, we’re actively advocating for these exact regulatory changes - pushing the FDA and FTC to update their rules so they finally reflect 21st-century science. These changes will lay the groundwork to ban formula advertising completely. We’ve submitted formal comments and petitions, we are educating lawmakers, and creating public awareness campaigns that highlight why these comparisons are scientifically absurd and harmful to informed choice.

Real change happens when enough of us speak up. If you want to help, sign our petition, share this post, donate, or reach out - together we can make sure policy catches up with the biology. We are saving lives - please join us and donate today.