What future for the IBCLC Certification in the Face of the New "Lactation Facilitator" Certificate

The announcement, on November 26, 2025, of the opening of the Certificate in Lactation Facilitation™ program by the Global Centre for Lactation Training (GCLT), an organization affiliated with IBLCE, has sparked strong interest within the community of Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLC).

While increasing access to basic breastfeeding support training is a laudable goal that we share, the manner in which this new certificate was introduced, with limited communication and without apparent consultation of already certified professionals, raises questions.

Need for Clarification and Impact Assessment

The new certificate is presented as a foundational skills program in breastfeeding support, distinct from the IBCLC certification, and targeting non-IBCLC individuals. However, its promotion through IBLCE's official channels creates potential confusion that should be dispelled.

The IBCLC certification has been recognized since 1985 as the international "gold standard" of the profession, based on rigorous requirements (training, clinical practice, examination, and costly recertification in terms of time and money). It is for this title and this excellence that individuals commit to this certification.

Risk of Public Confusion

The coexistence and joint promotion of two levels of "recognition" by affiliated organizations risk causing confusion regarding the IBCLC status among the public, families, and institutions. Infant safety and care quality rely on a clear distinction between skill levels.

In France, the IBCLC is not already recognized by government bodies, and adding a sub-certification risks maintaining confusion.

Socio-Economic Impact for Independent IBCLCs

Many independent IBCLCs practice in an already tense economic context. We discuss this in this article.

The introduction of a new "Lactation Facilitator" certificate, promoted by the organization guaranteeing our profession, raises concerns:

Unfair Competition:There is a real risk that less-trained providers, yet benefiting from a form of "certification" recognized by the IBLCE affiliate, will generate downward pressure on tariffs and missions, especially if the public confuses the statuses.
Devaluation of Investment: The financial investment and time mobilized by IBCLCs in their initial training and recertification (often from their own funds) are significant.
The appearance of an official, less demanding tier without prior communication could be perceived as a retroactive devaluation of this commitment. Meanwhile, IBLCE has announced a price increase for its certification fees for 2026.

How does IBLCE envisage supporting and protecting the economic activity of IBCLCs in private practice in the face of this new market offering?

Relationship with CERP Providers: Training organizations and instructors who offer CERPs invest to be recognized by IBLCE. The introduction of a new competing product by an affiliate, without a discussion process, creates a sense of lost visibility and uncertainty regarding the future evolution of training validation criteria.

An Interrupted Recognition Process: The Evolution of IBCLC Certification

Before 2011, it was possible for individuals from any professional background (such as breastfeeding counselors from volunteer work and without a medical degree) to sit for the IBCLC examination provided they met the required hours of training and practice.

In 2011, IBLCE modified its eligibility criteria and reserved direct access to certification for candidates with recognized health training, such as physicians, pharmacists, midwives, nurses, or dietitians. This decision aimed to standardize the level of clinical qualification and strengthen the international recognition of the IBCLC as a specialized health certification. Individuals not from the medical field must now follow a university curriculum or obtain a health degree to sit for the exam.

It is to this frustration (created voluntarily by IBLCE) that this new certification responds.

However, individuals who access the role of lactation consultant primarily through their maternal experience face two major difficulties.

The first concerns the weight of their own breastfeeding experience, which must be sufficiently integrated and elaborated so as not to interfere with their professional practice. By way of analogy, it is not necessary to have suffered from lung cancer to practice pneumology, but being a pneumologist and having oneself gone through this illness can constitute an obstacle to objective practice if this experience has not been worked on and supervised.

The second difficulty lies in the lack of scientific and medical training, as well as the lack of direct field experience in care, elements that are nonetheless essential to guarantee rigorous and safe management. Understanding and interpreting scientific research, having a critical eye on information disseminated in the world of breastfeeding, is an indispensable prerequisite provided by medical training. Of course, these obstacles are not insurmountable.

However, the recognition of IBCLCs has sometimes been complicated by the very history of the profession. Before 2011, some access pathways strongly emphasized maternal breastfeeding experience as the main entry point into the profession. Mothers who had had a strong breastfeeding experience (often positive) became volunteers within mothers' associations, and after 1000 hours of volunteering and breastfeeding training, they could certify. Even if this personal experience is valuable, this perception has probably been misunderstood by French institutions, with a lack of professional legitimacy, which may have hindered the official structuring of the role. Furthermore, as with other highly feminized professions (nurses, dietitians, midwives, child care nurses, ...), the predominance of women in this profession, in addition to the theme (breastfeeding, in the era of artificial milk lobbies and in a society where historically feminism has disparaged breastfeeding), may have led institutions to give it less consideration. This structural bias may have contributed to slowing down the official recognition of the IBCLC role.

It is not always obvious for families, and one might imagine that this new certification brings more clarity. Yet, our analysis suggests that it risks rather complicating the landscape, by adding an additional layer of distinctions and rules that do not facilitate understanding nor access to care.

Call for Transparency

IBLCE has more than 38,000 IBCLCs worldwide, not counting the numerous national associations and training partners. A structural decision potentially affecting the exercise of the profession should ideally be part of a visible and inclusive consultation process of stakeholders.

The context of increasing certification and recertification fees, alongside the launch of a new paid and renewable certificate, raises the fundamental question of the strategic and financial motivations of IBLCE.

Does this program primarily respond to a public health need or to a necessity to diversify the organization's revenue?

We are convinced that IBLCE must retain the full confidence of its certified professionals. When the certifying body introduces a new commercial product without associating its historical certified members, the moral contract of trust is put to the test.

Conclusion

It is important to remember that the IBCLC certification in France is not recognized as a regulated professional title by the State. French IBCLCs therefore invest by ethical and professional choice in a private, costly, and demanding certification.

In this particular context, it is very worrying that the certifying body acts in a way that dilutes the perceived value of this title and compromises this strong voluntary commitment.