The exploitation of maternal guilt in consumerism and politics
Written By Anagha Sreeram
The role of a mother is unequivocally crucial in any society, but those undergoing motherhood are often judged. Society implicitly assigns values, requiring mothers to pass a series of tests to be considered “good”, penalising mothers who do not fit norms. This means that mothers, as well as facing the demanding task of raising their infants, often need to battle with the ever-existing fear of misstepping, as society is quick to place blame on mothers for any perceived ‘issue’ they take with the children.
A study in Iceland highlights how rampant this issue is. Although Iceland is well-known for its gender equality, Rúdólfsdóttir found that two overarching themes of maternal guilt are working long hours and failing to be present consistently for the child. This pervasive sense of maternal responsibility, often to the detriment of the mother’s own autonomy, can be capitalised to fearmonger and push agendas.
The co-opting of stigma to spread fear
The most recent example of this fearmongering, inspiring this article, was Trump’s tirade against acetaminophen, more commonly known as paracetamol in the UK and Tylenol in the US. On 22nd September 2025, the President advised pregnant women that the common painkiller “is no good” and that women should only take it sparingly, instead choosing to “fight like hell”, opting only to take it in the most extreme fevers. This is in line with a notice from the FDA, where the first paragraph cites accumulating evidence “suggesting that the use of acetaminophen by pregnant women may be associated with an increased risk of neurological conditions such as autism and ADHD in children.” Only in the second paragraph is the clarification, “ a causal relationship has not been established and there are contrary studies in the scientific literature”.
This is not the only medical statement issue made by the US government either, with Martin Makary, head of the FDA, claimed that leucovorin, a drug whose efficacy has not yet been confirmed due to small clinical trials, ‘treated’ autism, though some researchers are raising concerns that the claims of improvement were either subjective or subtle.
The blanket statements used by both men in positions of immense power contain neither nuance nor strong scientific evidence. Trump uses rousing language almost equating pain from sickness during pregnancy, an already frightening prospect, to a battle. Multiple medical bodies have since denounced Trump’s proclamation, warning that acetaminophen is important to treat pain and fever, which researchers at Duke have found in 2017, could interfere with the development of the heart and jaw, specifically cautioning to not hesitate to take acetaminophen, “which has been studied extensively and determined to be safe during the first trimester." This is a classic example of spreading medical misinformation and furthering mistrust in science, where a commonly used, crucial drug was demonised with unfounded scientific claims.
It also leeches off fear caused by widespread misinformation on Autism itself. The lack of biomarkers of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) means that it is defined and diagnosed by observing symptoms and behaviours, leaving room for speculation. While these observational, experience-based, non-falsifiable measures allow a diverse representation of the condition, however it costs precision in clinical practice, care and research. This allows a lack of widely available, concrete medical research to create uncertainty. A narrative review on the subject states that stigma in autism is understudied, but is affected by people’s understanding of autism and visible traits, shaped in turn by cultural differences, sex and gender, education, age and quality and quantity of contact with people with autism. Stigma is often propagated by mass media consumption, confirming and compounding these biases. This explains why the government could have chosen ASD as the target of their press release, as its wider spectrum of diagnosis, generally considered a positive, can be weaponised to emphasise uncertainty and stigma.
Mothers: the easy target for fearmongering
However, what stood out most eminently was the fact that Trump’s statement preys on the fear of new mothers, who must manage the weight of parental responsibility that society often places disproportionately on them. Jonathan Metzl, director of the Vanderbilt Centre for Medicine, Health and Society, warned that “concerns about behaviours of mothers are sometimes shaped… by fatherly concerns that women aren’t acting ‘as they should’”. This draws light onto a rather unsettling phenomenon, where despite mother’s actions and intentions, unproven associations are drawn by men, automatically blaming mothers for any potential ‘undesirable’ trait in children as a deflection from their own impact on children. A study on Nature suggests mothers are often the target of blame for their children’s issues, citing the term “refrigerator mothers” from the 1970s to refer to the mothers of children with autism. This attributes blame to the mother, not only condemning them for being ‘cold’ to their children as the cause for the children’s ‘condition’, but also objectifying them by drawing comparisons to a commodity. Similarly, pre-Victorian society often associated criminal tendencies of children with the mother’s habits during pregnancy until the 1800s. In short, mothers often receive the sole blame for the health and behaviour of their children and are heavily scrutinised and shamed for their habits. This understandably brings about fear and the seeking of assistance from people who are assumed to be in positions of knowledge and power, implicitly trusting them. Despite waves of progress in gender equality, mothers are still often short changed with regards to societal perception.
A 2024 study on lived experiences of guilt and shame in the first 16 weeks post-partum defined guilt as “feelings of remorse concerning a moral transgression”; this may be internalised as shame, resulting in self-blame, abandonment, aggression and insecurity. The study found themes of mothers feeling “inadequate” if they felt anything except optimism and joy surrounding motherhood or if they faced parental challenges, as well as comparing their infant’s milestones with other children. The study also found that new mothers tended to blame themselves should they find any challenges in their infant’s development or health status, with poor feeding being a major concern.
This is reflected in the ever-expanding trends in the maternal health market, consisting of prenatal diagnostics, screening, drugs, technology and tools. Valued at $31.231 billion in 2019, it has seen steady growth since, and is expected to rise to $140.1 billion by 2035. This illustrates growing caution and paranoia relating to the effect of maternal habits on foetal health, perhaps due to the persuasion of effective fearmongering through advertising, suggesting that without these devices, childcare is compromised. On the contrary, the impact of paternal health is rarely discussed in society, with research into the impact of pre-conceptional exposure, such as regular exercise or the use of tobacco and alcohol, and its effect on the placenta beginning just over 20 years ago. This re-emphasises the sole responsibility society places on pregnant women and mothers for the health of their child.
Historical examples of exploitation
This maternal fear and trust was famously exploited by Nestlé as early as 1897, who used scientific jargon and an academic tone in advertisements to push their ‘Pure Alpine Swiss Milk’ as an optimal alternative for breastmilk. They stated that “irrational food is one of the main causes of the high mortality of infants”, demonstrating how their product addressed all the physiological needs of infants in a similar reductive tone to the White House press release about acetaminophen. They also emphasised the approval and testing of the product by eminent professors. These advertisements were widespread, appearing in medical journals and printed on packaging. Seeking positive testimonies and prescription of Nestlé products, the company built rapport with physicians, supplying them with brochures and free samples. This blatantly exploited mothers’ trust in the medical field to push a corporate agenda. Despite breastmilk being widely accepted as the ideal in Europe and by Nestlé themselves, they continued to push ‘artificial foods’ for infants in their first few months in low income countries. According to ‘War on Want’, the organisation to bring the scandal to light, the baby food industry promoted their products which could not afford to use them properly, and incentivised consumption by dressing sales representatives as nurses, offering free samples and gifts to coerce mothers into quitting breastfeeding. Their article also hints at the erasure of local cultures to turn towards Western feeding styles, which is alarming to consider; the colonial imposition of Western practices and ideas over local cultures as ‘superior’ or ‘preferred’ continued.
Despite strict advertising regulations, the trend continues to date, with a 2014 report raising concerns over promotional materials idealising products for infants. For example, a Chinese follow-up formula, Dumex, claimed that the nutrients within the product offered protection and immunity without scientific basis. Similarly, a Heinz Apple Purée, fortified with iron, DHA and Omega-3 was advertised as suitable for infants older than four months, despite global public health recommendations of exclusive breastfeeding for six months. This undoubtedly plays into mother’s fears of ‘failing’ their children, opting to trust advertisements’ seemingly better judgement on nutrition.
In conclusion, societal roles and expectations for a “good” mother have placed immense amounts of pressure and responsibility on women. An arbitrary scale has been created to judge mothers’ ability to raise their children according to what society considers ‘well’, penalising mothers with shame and guilt if their children waver from socially accepted milestones. This weight has understandably resulted in mothers outsourcing advice to seemingly trusted sources of authority. However, it is clear that this authority can be either misused to create fear and mistrust in science, as with the tylenol case, or influenced by corporate agendas, as with Nestlé’s use of medical imagery surrounding their products.
Read the rest of the edition here
References
Annadís Greta Rúdólfsdóttir, Auður Magndís Auðardóttir. 2024. ““I feel like I am betraying my child”: The socio-politics of maternal guilt and shame.” Gender, work & organisztion 2733-2748.
BBC. 2025. What we know about rising autism rates and Trump's unproven Tylenol link . 23 09. Accessed 11 28, 2025. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpq51dry7wgo.
Evangelina Capobianco, Irune Pirrone. 2025. The POHaD paradigm: role of the placenta in paternal programming. 29 04. Accessed 12 02, 2025. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143400425001389.
International Baby Food Action Network. 2014. Breaking the Rules 2014. https://www.babymilkaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BTR14inbrief.pdf.
Kennedy Lrieger. 2015. The Stigma of Autism: When All Eyes Are Upon You . 15 01. Accessed 11 28, 2025. https://www.kennedykrieger.org/stories/interactive-autism-network-ian/autism-stigma.
Kinjoll. 2023. Maternal Health Market . 10. Accessed 12 02, 2025. https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/maternal-health-market-732.
Kukla, Rebecca. 2008. “Measuring mothering.” International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics.
Leanne Jackson, Emily O'Donoghue, Jasmin Helm, Rita Gentilcore, Anisha Hussain. 2024. “‘Some Days Are Not a Good Day to Be a Mum’: Exploring Lived Experiences of Guilt and Shame in the Early Postpartum Period.” Parenting across the Lifespan: Perinatal Mental Health, Infant Feeding, and Child Development 3019=3038.
Leonardo Emberti Gialloreti, Paolo Curatolo. 2018. Autism Spectrum Disorder: Why Do We Know So Little? . 17 08. Accessed 11 28, 2025. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6107753/.
Nature. 2014. Society: Don't blame the mothers. 13 08. Accessed 12 01, 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/512131a.
—. 2025. Trump team backs an unproven drug for autism — but does it work? . 23 09. Accessed 11 28, 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03103-7.
Oxford Centre for Global History. 2019. Nestlé’s Corporate Reputation and the Long History of Infant Formula. 11. Accessed 12 02, 2025. https://globalcapitalism.history.ox.ac.uk/files/case12-nestlescorporatereputationpdf-1.
Russell, Brian. 1956. “Exploitation of Fear in Advertising.” British Medical Journal 46.
The British Medical Journal. 2025. Autism: Trump links condition to Tylenol and touts leucovorin as “first” US therapeutic. 24 09. Accessed 11 28, 2025. https://www.bmj.com/content/390/bmj.r2004.short.
