Posted Feb 16 2023 at 11:20Updated Feb 16. 2023 at 11:21
Improved quality of sleep, a more efficient brain, stronger immune defences… Are these promises, touted by certain infant milks, scientifically substantiated? No, reaffirm this Thursday a study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). According to its authors, who analyzed 757 formulas for infants aged 0 to 12 months in 15 countries, three quarters of the products do not mention any scientific reference attesting to these supposed benefits.
“When claims cited scientific evidence, only 14% of citations were from registered clinical trials and 90% of these were at high risk of bias,” the authors lament. The clinical trials cited were indeed conducted by researchers who had received funding or had links with the manufacturers. The authors refer to a “lack of independence or transparency” which “can be misleading for parents and health care workers, subsequently affecting their recommendations”.
“Predatory” Marketing
The allegations pointed out by the study are numerous. Among the most cited are the following statements on the packaging: “boosts/supports a healthy immune system”, “helps/supports the development of the brain and/or eyes and/or nervous system”, “helps/supports the growth and development”, “easy to digest” or “supports digestive health”. “It is clear that most parents are exposed to infant formula marketing during pregnancy or the postnatal period and are often misled by claims,” the authors say.
The latter deplore the lack of reaction from the authorities despite the proliferation of studies in recent years highlighting this marketing phenomenon. The BMJ study published on Thursday comes just a week after a series of articles published in the scientific journal “The Lancet” , calling for stricter regulations imposed on manufacturers of infant formula. Manufacturers are accused of “predatory” marketing exploiting the fears of new parents to convince them not to breastfeed.
A previous study, published last spring by the World Health Organization (WHO), also went in this direction. “Cynical marketing techniques used to promote breastmilk substitutes encourage overconsumption, discourage breastfeeding, undermine mothers’ confidence and exploit parents’ natural inclinations to want to do the best for their children,” she said. .
Call for plain packaging
Daniel Munblit, honorary lecturer at Imperial College London and co-author of the study published in the BMJ, defends himself against any “crusade” by researchers against formula milk, which must remain an option for mothers who cannot or not wishing to breastfeed. “But we strongly oppose inappropriate infant formula marketing where it provides misleading claims that are not supported by strong evidence.”
The BMJ researchers point to the progress made in recent years in “implementing mandatory composition and information requirements for infant formula”. But they believe that “transparency is still lacking when it comes to nutrition and health claims”. They therefore call for the prohibition of these claims for breastmilk substitutes through the introduction of plain packaging.
Like several international organizations (First Steps Nutrition Trust, 44 International Baby Foods Action Network, WHO and UNICEF), they also recommend giving priority to breastfeeding, because of its health benefits for babies.
