Abbot Labs May Have Misrepresented The Nutritional Value Of Similac Baby Formula As Being Like Breast Milk

A class-action lawsuit filed recently states that baby formula nutrition comes up short

Tuesday, November 30, 2021 - Companies should err on the side of caution, not exaggerate their product's benefits when making claims about the nutritional value and safety of baby formula that we feed to infants. The reputation of honesty and integrity is critical for companies that supply breast milk substitute products to infants. Earning customer trust is crucial when building a reputable brand. Similac and Enfamil brands of infant formula are under fire by mothers who are concerned about the health and safety of their children for promoting their products as being suitable for consumption by infants born prematurely. The companies may have misrepresented their product when drawing comparisons to the nutritional value of breast milk when it falls far short. Abbot Labs told mothers that one of their infant formulas was the closest yet to natural breast milk, implying nutrition that was not there. Abbot Labs and Meade Inc., the makers of Enfamil and Similac baby formulas are accused of covering up their knowledge that their infant formulas causes necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) when given to premature babies. NEC formula lawsuits against the companies allege that the company made material representations that their prematurely born infant formula was superior to a mother's breast milk and should be given to those in need of higher nutrition. NEC can be a life-threatening disease where the newborn infant is unable to digest the food that it is fed. Ulcerations of the stomach and intestines can occur that cause leaking and infection.

In a related matter, a mother has filed a class-action lawsuit against Abbot Labs. The lawsuit argues that the company misrepresented its Similac infant formula as being nutritionally equal to breast milk. The lawsuit states that the mothers in the group would not have paid extra for Similac had they known that it was not nutritionally equal to breast milk. According to AboutLawsuits.com, the plaintiff's complaint stated, "The Product's comparisons to breast milk expressly and impliedly claim that it can confer the structure/function benefits of breast milk. These claims are false, deceptive, and misleading," Conner's lawsuit states. "No competent and reliable scientific evidence, which would include studies with control groups of exclusively breastfed infants, compared to infants fed the Product, and who the similarities between breast milk and the Product, exists." The company claimed that Similac had the nutritional quality that would "promote immune support and promotes brain and eye development," two of the many advantages that mother's milk has over all other forms of infant food, according to AL. The baby food lawsuit seeks refunds for the thousands of parents that trusted the company's representation and were misled. NEC Formula lawyers represent parents whose infants have died after developing NEC from being force-fed Enfamil and Similac products. Infants that have survived being born prematurely and fed Enfamil and Similac are feared to be physically and neurologically impacted by the chemicals in the product and unable to assimilate the nutrients that were artificially added to the baby formulas.

More Recent NEC Formula Lawsuit News:

Lawyers for NEC Formula Lawsuits

We will represent all persons involved in a NEC lawsuit on a contingency basis, meaning there are never any legal fees unless we win compensation in your case. Anyone whose child suffered from or died as a result of NEC from formula is eligible to receive a free, no-obligation case review from our attorneys. Simply contact our firm through the online contact form or the chat feature and one of our NEC formula lawyers will contact you promptly to discuss your case.