Lawsuit: Abbott Labs’ Similac Go & Grow Toddler Powder Labels 'Confusingly Similar’ to Nutritionally Different Infant Product

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action claims Abbott Laboratories has deceptively and misleadingly labeled its Similac Go & Grow toddler drink in that the product’s name is “confusingly similar” to that of the company’s infant formula, leading buyers to incorrectly believe the former is nutritionally appropriate for children after their first year of life.

More specifically, the name “Toddler Drink, Milk-Based Powder,” despite containing no mention of the word “iron” as it appears in Abbott’s “Infant Formula with Iron,” fails to sufficiently distinguish one product from the other, especially when considering the formulas’ labels both prominently display references to spinach, the 17-page lawsuit says. Moreover, the toddler formula’s labeling fails to mention how it is different from Abbott’s infant formula, the suit claims.

According to the case out of New York, the defendant’s product labeling gives caregivers the false impression that the Similac Go & Grow toddler drink, which is more expensive than whole cow’s milk, is the appropriate “next step” for a toddler’s nutritional needs in the same way that infant formula is considered a nutritionally suitable alternative to breastmilk.

 “The labeling of the Toddler Drink and Infant Formula gives caregivers of children of the targeted age group the false impression that infants and young toddlers have identical nutrient requirements,” the complaint summarizes.

Per the suit, Abbott’s Similac Go & Grow formula is a milk-based powder advertised as meeting and necessary for the nutritional needs of children between the ages of 12 and 36 months. 

 The lawsuit says, however, that transitioning infants and toddlers from only breastfeeding or infant formula with iron to the family’s regular diet is “critical for establishing healthy dietary preferences and preventing obesity in children.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends after 12 months of exclusive breastfeeding with some complementary foods thrown in, a switch to whole plain cow’s milk, water and healthy foods as part of a balanced diet, the case relays. Within this framework, infant formula fills the role as a food purporting to be of special dietary use for infants in that it simulates human milk and is at least a partially suitable substitute, per the complaint. 

The lawsuit says, however, that breastfeeding rates have “increased significantly” since 2003, leading to a decline in sales of infant formula. To make up for this drop-off, companies such as Abbott Labs have introduced myriad transition formulas, follow-on formulas, weaning formulas and similar food products for children older than 12 months but less than three years old, the suit explains. According to the complaint, these products are “practically identical to infant formula” given they’re based on milk powder with added nutrients, and are represented on labels and in advertising in a similar fashion despite infants and toddlers having separate, distinct dietary needs.

To that end, the lawsuit notes that one Abbott Labs product is identified as “Infant Formula with Iron” and the “Powder, Milk-Based” descriptor while another, the Go & Grow product, is dubbed “Toddler Drink” and similarly “milk-based.” The case argues the defendant’s name for its toddler product is deceptive and misleading in that it’s confusingly similar to the infant formula, with the product’s packaging offering no way in which the former is different from the latter outside of the absence of the word “iron.” 

“The absence of the term ‘Iron’ from the Toddler Drink’s statement of identity is insufficient to distinguish the Products because the front panel prominently references spinach and [broccoli], two vegetables known to be high in iron, as part of its OptiGRO graphic,” the complaint reads. “The Transition Formula Product has similar statements, graphics, color patterns, fonts and labeling design to the Infant Formula Product.” 

Caregivers are consequently left with the false impression that infants and younger toddlers have identical nutrient requirements, despite that global health authorities have recommended cow’s milk, water and healthy foods as a balanced diet for young children, the suit says. 

“The similar labeling of the Similac Go & Grow Toddler Drink and the Similac Infant Formula causes caregivers to make inaccurate and ill-advised nutritional purchasing decisions,” according to the lawsuit.

Experts have noted that toddler transition formulas such as the Abbott’s toddler product offer “no unique nutritional value beyond what could be achieved through a nutritionally adequate diet,” the case argues, noting that the defendant’s product also contains four grams of added sugar absent from the infant formula. 

Abbott Labs has been able to sell more of its toddler formula and at higher prices than it would have absent its “misconduct,” the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit’s filing comes on the heels of at least three other proposed class actions in which consumers alleged the toddler formulas Enfagrow Premium, Gerber Good Start Grow Stage 3 and Up&Up Toddler Next Stage products were subject to similarly misleading labeling. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.