Kendamil’s marketing claims about whole milk, breast milk similarities, HMOs and brand heritage have come under scrutiny after a challenge from Abbott Laboratories. The National Advertising Division (NAD) found evidence supporting some of Kendal Nutricare’s ingredient claims but recommended that the company modify or discontinue several advertising messages that could imply unsupported nutritional advantages.

Kendamil Told to Modify Advertising Claims After Abbott Challenge

Advertising claims in the infant formula market are facing renewed scrutiny after the National Advertising Division (NAD) recommended changes to several marketing messages used by Kendal Nutricare Limited for its Kendamil infant formula.

The case was brought by Abbott Laboratories, a major player in infant nutrition through brands including Similac. The dispute covered claims appearing on Kendamil packaging, its website and digital advertising.

NAD, part of BBB National Programs, determined that Kendal had substantiated certain claims concerning its use of whole milk. But the advertising self-regulatory body recommended that the company discontinue or revise claims involving nutritional superiority, comparisons with breast milk, specific HMO benefits and the interpretation of the brand’s history.

The decision illustrates a broader challenge for consumer brands: an advertising claim can be factually based yet still create a broader impression that the available evidence does not support.

Whole milk claims survive, but superiority messaging does not

One of the central issues involved Kendamil’s use of whole milk.

NAD found that Kendal had evidence supporting claims that whole milk is a primary ingredient in the formula and contributes naturally occurring milk fat.

The problem arose when the advertising contrasted Kendamil’s formulation with competing products.

NAD concluded that statements suggesting competing formulas lose “natural milk fats and important nutrients” could reasonably lead consumers to believe those products were nutritionally inferior.

According to the decision, the evidence did not establish that infants receive superior nutritional benefits from Kendamil’s whole-milk formulation.

As a result, NAD recommended discontinuing the broader claim that described Kendamil as using “creamy whole milk” from European grass-fed cows while suggesting competing formulas involved “skimming,” “shortcuts” or unnecessary ingredients.

For advertising teams, the distinction is important. A company may substantiate what an ingredient is and where it comes from without necessarily substantiating a claim that the ingredient makes its product nutritionally better than competitors.

Breast milk comparisons require a higher evidentiary bar

Kendamil’s advertising also compared its milk fat with breast milk.

NAD found that evidence supported qualified statements about compositional similarities between whole milk fat and breast milk. However, it did not find sufficient evidence that those similarities translated into comparative nutritional benefits for infants.

That distinction led NAD to recommend discontinuing several claims suggesting Kendamil’s whole-milk approach keeps natural fats closer to breast milk or provides natural milk fat instead of vegetable oils.

NAD also recommended that Kendal modify or discontinue milk-fat comparison graphics because they did not accurately represent the composition of Kendamil and competing formulas.

This part of the decision highlights an increasingly important issue in digital advertising: visual claims can communicate a comparative message even when the accompanying text is more carefully qualified.

For brands operating across packaging, websites, social media and performance advertising, compliance therefore extends beyond individual sentences to the overall impression created by a campaign.

HMO claims lacked product-specific support

The case also examined Kendamil’s claims around human milk oligosaccharides, or HMOs.

NAD determined that Kendal’s advertising reasonably conveyed that its particular combination of 3′-GL, 4′-GL and 6′-GL was unique and intended to support immune health.

But the evidence submitted did not adequately match those specific product claims.

NAD therefore recommended that Kendal discontinue claims stating that its particular HMO blend supports immune health.

The finding reflects a common problem in regulated advertising: research supporting a general ingredient or category claim may not necessarily substantiate a claim about a specific formulation.

For marketers, that means product-level claims need evidence that maps directly to the formulation, dosage, combination or use case being promoted.

“Est. 1962” creates another advertising problem

Kendal’s heritage messaging also attracted scrutiny.

NAD found that consumers could reasonably interpret unqualified statements such as “Est. 1962” and “60 years of experience” as meaning the Kendamil brand or formula itself had existed continuously since 1962.

The decision recommended that Kendal modify or discontinue those claims so that consumers understand the references to relate to the manufacturing facility or production heritage rather than the age of the Kendamil brand or formula.

Heritage claims can be particularly valuable in categories where consumers place a premium on trust and longevity. But the decision shows why marketers need to distinguish between the history of a company, facility, parent organization, product line and individual brand.

What the decision means for digital advertising teams

Although the case concerns infant formula, its implications extend to advertising operations more broadly.

Modern campaigns distribute claims across multiple touchpoints: product packaging, ecommerce listings, paid search, social media, landing pages and display advertising.

That creates more opportunities for an unsupported claim to appear in slightly different forms.

The Kendamil decision demonstrates why marketing and legal teams need to evaluate the overall consumer takeaway, rather than simply asking whether individual statements are technically accurate.

It also reinforces the importance of maintaining evidence libraries that connect specific claims to specific research. Ingredient-level evidence may support an ingredient description without supporting superiority, health-outcome or comparative claims.

For enterprise brands, the lesson is particularly relevant as AI-assisted marketing tools make it easier to generate and distribute large volumes of advertising copy. Automated creative generation can accelerate campaign production, but it does not eliminate the need for human review of regulated claims.

Kendal agrees to comply

During the inquiry, Kendal permanently discontinued a separate exclusivity claim. NAD will treat that claim as discontinued for compliance purposes.

In its advertiser statement, Kendal said it would comply with NAD’s recommendations.

The decision does not represent a finding that all Kendamil advertising was unsupported. Instead, NAD distinguished between claims for which evidence was adequate and broader messages for which it determined the evidence did not substantiate the consumer takeaway.

That distinction is increasingly important as advertising becomes more personalized, visual and automated.

For marketers, the Kendamil case offers a practical reminder: the strongest advertising claims are not necessarily the most expansive ones. They are the ones that can be tied cleanly to evidence and understood by consumers without creating a misleading comparison.

Market Landscape

Advertising self-regulation is becoming increasingly important as brands make more detailed claims about ingredients, health benefits, sustainability, product origins and heritage.

The Kendamil case illustrates three recurring compliance challenges:

• Comparative claims: Demonstrating that a product contains a particular ingredient does not automatically establish superiority over competing products.
• Health claims: Evidence needs to support the specific product, formulation and benefit being advertised.
• Overall impression: Graphics, wording and context can collectively communicate claims that go beyond the literal meaning of individual statements.

These issues are particularly relevant to digital marketing teams using automated creative generation, ecommerce content systems and AI-powered personalization.

As the volume of advertising variations increases, organizations need stronger claim governance, evidence management and approval workflows.

Top Insights

• NAD supported Kendamil’s whole-milk ingredient claims but rejected broader messaging implying competing formulas were nutritionally inferior without adequate supporting evidence.
• Breast milk comparisons faced additional scrutiny, with NAD finding compositional similarities did not establish the comparative nutritional benefits suggested by Kendamil’s advertising.
• Kendamil’s HMO claims were narrowed, because evidence supporting the specific 3′-GL, 4′-GL and 6′-GL blend did not adequately substantiate the advertised immune-health benefit.
• Heritage messaging also required changes, after NAD found consumers could interpret “Est. 1962” as referring to the Kendamil brand rather than manufacturing heritage.
• The case highlights claim-governance challenges, particularly for digital marketing teams managing packaging, ecommerce, paid media and AI-generated advertising content.

Get in touch with our Adtech experts