Most Baby Formula Health Claims Not Based on Evidence, Undermines Breastfeeding: Researchers

Cans of baby formula are seen in Auckland, New Zealand, on March 10, 2015. Fiona Goodall/Getty Images
Updated:
0:00
The majority of health claims on baby formula products are backed by little to no scientific evidence, an international survey found, with researchers calling for more rigorous marketing regulations.

Scientists from the Imperial College London said regulations need to provide better protections against harms linked with the aggressive marketing of baby formula.

They argue that the health claims are controversial because they can undermine breastfeeding through the perceived enhanced benefits of formula over breastfeeding.

Story continues below advertisement

Daniel Munblit, honorary senior lecturer at Imperial College London and co-author of the study, said they weren’t carrying out a “crusade” against infant formula, which should remain available for mothers unable to breastfeed.

“But we are very much against inappropriate infant formula marketing, which provides misleading claims not backed up by solid evidence,” Munblit told AFP.
Published in the British Medical Journal on Feb. 15, the study examined the packaging of formula products and their health claims in Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 2020-22.

Formula Manufacturers Claims Not Supported by Science

The most common claims advertised are for supporting brain development, immunity, and growth, but no scientific reference was provided for almost three-quarters of products making specific health claims.

Moreover, half of the products made claims without reference to a specific ingredient.

When references were provided, over half were clinical trials, but the rest were reviews, opinion pieces, or other research, including animal studies.

Story continues below advertisement

However, even the clinical trial references were problematic as only 14 percent were prospectively registered, meaning the methodology and conduct of planned trials are made public before enrolling participants.

Additionally, 90 percent of claims that cited registered clinical trials carried a high risk of bias, the researchers found.

“These findings support calls for a revised regulatory framework for breast milk substitutes to better protect consumers and avoid the harms associated with aggressive marketing of such products,” they said.

Breastfeeding Newborns Is the Best Option

The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about six months, if possible. However, only 44 percent of infants up to six months old are exclusively breastfed.
“Breastmilk is the ideal food for infants. It is safe, clean and contains antibodies which help protect against many common childhood illnesses,” the WHO states on its website.
Story continues below advertisement

“Breastfed children perform better on intelligence tests, are less likely to be overweight or obese and less prone to diabetes later in life. Women who breastfeed also have a reduced risk of breast and ovarian cancers.

“Inappropriate marketing of breast milk substitutes continues to undermine efforts to improve breastfeeding rates and duration worldwide.”

Breastfeeding is natural, but it often isn't easy. (Nastyaofly/Shutterstock)
Breastfeeding is natural, but it often isn't easy. Nastyaofly/Shutterstock
A report in 2022 found that pregnant women in China, Vietnam, and the UK are exposed to baby formula advertisements that breach global marketing guidelines for formula milk.
Story continues below advertisement

Written by WHO, UNICEF, and M&C Saatchi, the report said these “aggressive” marketing techniques can push women away from breastfeeding.

While the authors acknowledged that baby formula was important for women unable or unwilling to breastfeed, they highlighted that marketing practices were a major reason for low breastfeeding rates around the world.

Another study found that formula milk had double the sugar per serving than a glass of soft drink.

The researchers noted that while breast milk was also sweet and high in energy, the sugar content is “specific to the needs of the growing infant.”

Story continues below advertisement
“Conversely, infant formula milk has a standardized make-up and contains added sugars such as corn syrup which are added during production and are not found in breast milk,” lead researcher Gemma Bridge from the Leeds Beckett University wrote in The Epoch Times.

She said that while there are codes to restrict the marketing of baby formula products, they are mostly voluntary, and manufacturers don’t have to abide by them.

“We found that many of the formulas had labels that included images of infants or cute toys of animals, presumably designed to entice caregivers into buying,” Bridge said.

“Such findings are not unsurprising as there is evidence that harmful marketing strategies have been used extensively by infant formula and follow-on milk manufacturers.”