Ethical and Practical Barriers to a Human-Milk Market
Pallmeyer’s ruling went beyond science, delving into the ethical and economic barriers of relying on human milk. “Milk banks depend on altruism,” she noted, warning that paying donors could risk depriving their own infants of essential nutrition. Even qualified donors might hesitate to undergo rigorous screening or part with milk needed for their babies.
The judge added that even if supply and cost challenges were solved, intermittent shortages would still force reliance on cow-milk-based products like Similac Special Care — a product she described as “necessary and lifesaving when no other options exist.”
In a striking analogy, Judge Pallmeyer compared the formula’s risks to a desperate safety measure:
“A lifeboat is not as safe as a cruise ship, but that fact alone does not render the lifeboat defective.”
Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Evidence and Arguments
The court also criticized the plaintiffs’ reliance on Abbott’s internal documents, which discussed potential acquisitions involving Prolacta. Pallmeyer clarified that these referred to fortifiers, not formulas, and reflected Abbott’s recognition that breast milk is preferred — not evidence of wrongdoing.
Ultimately, she concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the product’s risks outweigh its benefits, emphasizing that Similac Special Care remains an essential backup for infants with no feeding alternatives.
