Human Milk Is Not a Commodity: The Case for a Binding Law in India

By Amarjeet Singh, Director, PRAN Foundation | October 2026

At the HuMEShA convening in New Delhi on 26 October 2026, I took part in a discussion on equity, ethics and the regulation of human milk sharing. The main research presented there was by Prof. Susan Newman of The Open University, whose study with Michal Nahman of the University of the West of England examines India’s first commercial human milk processor. As a lawyer, I came away with one conclusion: India has policy statements on human milk but no law that clearly forbids its commercial sale.

A market that grew in the gap

Reporting from 2022 described two private companies, in Bengaluru and Mohali, processing and selling human milk, and doctors and activists raised concerns about the exploitation of poor lactating women. The most detailed academic account is the study by Susan Newman and Michal Nahman, “Nurture commodified? An investigation into commercial human milk supply chains”, published in the Review of International Political Economy.

The study rests on interviews and fieldwork carried out between December 2019 and February 2020 and focuses on NeoLacta Lifesciences, a Bengaluru-based company incorporated in 2016, which the authors describe as the first commercial human milk processor in India. They report that it was licensed by FSSAI as a dairy business and obtained an export licence for Australia in 2017, and that it sells pasteurised, protein-enriched human milk at Rs 450 for 15 ml. On the basis of their interviews, they also report that its products were sold to parents of full-term babies and outside hospitals. A company representative has told the press that donors join voluntarily after signing a consent form, that products are sold on prescription in hospital settings, and that the study is incomplete.

On donors, the authors report that the company recruits both urban professional women and poorer rural women, the latter often through NGOs. They found that some of these women receive cash or food such as jaggery, groundnuts, wheat and rice, that payment varies and can depend on the volume supplied, and that some field workers described the work as unpaid and philanthropic. They conclude that the practices are exploitative, and that presenting milk as a gift helps the company obtain it free or at very low cost. These are the researchers’ findings and conclusions, not findings of any court. They also argue that regulating human milk as a food allowed the company to obtain an export licence and to make health claims without the restrictions that apply to drugs.

NeoLacta’s FSSAI licence was later cancelled, as was a subsequent licence from Karnataka’s Ayush department, and the company challenged the Ayush cancellation in the Karnataka High Court. Whether the products are food, medicine or something else remains unsettled in law, which is why a binding statute is needed.

The trade has continued. In 2024, food safety officials in Chennai sealed an outlet that was selling human milk at Rs 500 per 50 ml bottle.

What the law actually says

The national guidelines bind no one. The government’s lactation management guidelines state that donor human milk cannot be used for any commercial purpose. But they are guidelines for public health facilities, and they are not legally binding. BPNI’s coordinator has said that no law in the country says that selling breast milk is not possible.

Food law was stretched. The companies obtained FSSAI licences under dairy and similar categories, which were later cancelled. In May 2024, FSSAI issued an advisory stating that it has not permitted the processing or sale of human milk, and asking licensing authorities not to register such businesses. That is a significant statement of the regulator’s position, but an advisory is not a rule. It does not define human milk, create an offence or set a penalty. FSSAI’s own chief executive has said that where there is no standard, no one can sell, market or store the product. That is an interpretation of the existing Act, and as far as I could find it has not been tested in court.

Other regimes do not fit. The Ayush department cancelled the licence it had given one company to sell human milk as an Ayurvedic drug. The Infant Milk Substitutes Act is reported to be silent on processed human milk, so it may not cover it either.

Nobody has classified it. The Lancet has noted that there is no consensus on whether human milk is a food, a tissue or a medicine. Without a classification, each regulator can say it is someone else’s responsibility.

Why this is a rights question

This is not only about product regulation. When milk is collected from economically vulnerable women and sold at premium prices, three rights concerns arise:

• Dignity and bodily autonomy (Article 21). Consent obtained from women with few alternatives is open to question.
• Exploitation (Article 23). Whether paying poor women to produce milk for sale engages the constitutional prohibition on traffic in human beings and forced labour is arguable and should be examined. Cambodia, when it banned exports of human milk, cited its laws on trafficking in body parts.
• Equality and access. Milk flows from poorer women to families who can afford the price, while sick newborns in public hospitals depend on a limited public supply. One survey of 22 donor milk banks found that 10 faced a gap between demand and supply.

What other countries show

India is not alone. A survey of 26 European jurisdictions found a defined legal classification for donor human milk in only nine. A global survey of non-profit milk bank leaders found that only four countries regulate human milk as a product of human origin in order to prevent its sale, and two ban its export or import. This is a chance for India to set a standard, not merely catch up.

What a binding law must do

1. Define human milk and its derivatives, including powders and fortifiers, so processed forms cannot escape.
2. Prohibit for-profit trade, sale and advertising of human milk and its derivatives, including online, with graded penalties, while allowing licensed non-profit banks to recover genuine processing costs.
3. License all milk banks as not-for-profit, public or private, with powers of inspection and cancellation.
4. Protect donors: informed and revocable consent, no payment or inducement, and priority for the donor’s own infant.
5. Make safety standards mandatory: screening, pasteurisation, testing and traceability.
6. Name one nodal authority. Responsibility is now split between health, food safety and other departments.
7. Expand public supply. India had 52 comprehensive lactation management centres and 50 lactation management units in 2023-24. A ban without adequate public banking could push demand into informal markets.
8. Exempt mothers and recipient families from liability. The law should target commercial actors, not women who donate or families who seek milk for a sick child.

A debate worth having

Not everyone who has studied this market favours an outright ban on sale. Newman and Nahman say they would not advocate one. They argue instead for greater support for women during pregnancy, birth and afterwards, more resources for childcare and higher wages for women workers, and they point to the State’s own role in enabling the trade. I think both points deserve to be taken seriously. A prohibition alone would not change the conditions that make poor women willing suppliers. That is why the law proposed here targets for-profit trade, protects donors, requires public supply and leaves families and donating mothers free of liability.

Conclusion

The principle that human milk should not be sold for profit already has broad support. Guidelines, advisories and licence cancellations have not stopped the trade. A law would give it force, and PRAN Foundation will continue to work for one.

This article is for general awareness and does not constitute legal or medical advice. Descriptions of companies are based on published reports and the companies’ stated positions, not on findings of any court.

Sources

• Susan Newman and Michal Nahman, “Nurture commodified? An investigation into commercial human milk supply chains”, Review of International Political Economy 29(6), 2022: doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2020.1864757
• ThePrint, “Breast milk sales picking up in India. Is it dairy or Ayurveda?” (December 2022): theprint.in
• The Tribune, “Food safety officials seal outlet selling human milk in Chennai”: tribuneindia.com
• India Blooms, “FSSAI warns against commercial sale of human milk”: indiablooms.com
• FactChecker, interview with BPNI and HMBAI on unregulated human milk banks: factchecker.in
• Shenker et al., “Comparison between the for-profit human milk industry and nonprofit human milk banking: Time for regulation?”, Maternal and Child Nutrition (2024): doaj.org
• Klotz et al., “The legislative framework of donor human milk and human milk banking in Europe”, Maternal and Child Nutrition (2022): doaj.org
• Lok Sabha reply on lactation management centres: eparlib.nic.in

---

About PRAN Foundation
PRAN Foundation (Policy Research Action Network Foundation) is a Section 8 non-profit working on access to justice, consumer protection, legal awareness, public health and policy advocacy. Website: https://www.publicrightaction.org/