Environmental Impact of Feeding with Infant Formula in Comparison with Breastfeeding

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 24;19(11):6397. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19116397.

Abstract

Young children have unique nutritional requirements, and breastfeeding is the best option to support healthy growth and development. Concerns have been raised around the increasing use of milk-based infant formulas in replacement of breastfeeding, in regards to health, social, economic and environmental factors. However, literature on the environmental impact of infant formula feeding and breastfeeding is scarce. In this study we estimated the environmental impact of four months exclusive feeding with infant formula compared to four months exclusive breastfeeding in a Norwegian setting. We used life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, including the impact categories global warming potential, terrestrial acidification, marine and freshwater eutrophication, and land use. We found that the environmental impact of four months exclusive feeding with infant formula was 35-72% higher than that of four months exclusive breastfeeding, depending on the impact category. For infant formula, cow milk was the main contributor to total score for all impact categories. The environmental impact of breastfeeding was dependant on the composition of the lactating mother's diet. In conclusion, we found that breastfeeding has a lower environmental impact than feeding with infant formula. A limitation of the study is the use of secondary LCA data for raw ingredients and processes.

Keywords: acidification; breastfeeding; eutrophication; global warming potential; infant formula; land use; life-cycle assessment.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Breast Feeding*
  • Cattle
  • Child, Preschool
  • Environment
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Infant
  • Infant Formula*
  • Lactation
  • Milk

Grants and funding

The project was funded by the Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, with supplementary funds from the Throne Holst Nutrition Research Foundation (UNIFOR) and the Research Council of Norway (301098). The funding sources did not have any role in the design, writing or submission of this article.