London: Most health and nutrition claims on formula milk products are backed by little or no high quality scientific evidence, according to a study published in The BMJ that used data from 15 countries, including India.
Common claims are that formula milk products benefit brain development, immunity, and growth in young infants, the researchers said.
However, the international team found that “transparency is still lacking” and that revised regulations are needed “to better protect consumers and avoid the harms associated with aggressive marketing of such products.”
Health and nutrition claims on infant formula products are controversial because they can enhance the perceived benefits of formula over breastfeeding and thereby undermine breastfeeding, the researchers said.
Yet data on the frequency of claims and their scientific substantiation are limited, they said.
The researchers searched websites of infant formula companies, examined packaging of formula products, and documented claims made about products marketed for healthy, full-term infants in 15 countries in 2020-22.
These countries were Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, the UK, and the US.
The study identified 757 infant formula products, each linked to an average of two claims (ranging from one in Australia to four in the US) and 31 types of claims across all products.
Of 608 products with one or more claims, the most common claim types were “helps/supports development of brain and/or eyes and/or nervous system”, “strengthens/supports a healthy immune system”, and “helps/supports growth and development”.
Across all countries, 161 out of 608 (26 per cent) of products with at least one claim provided a scientific reference to support the claim, the researchers said.
No scientific reference was provided for most (74 per cent) of products making specific health claims, they said.
When references were provided, the study found that 56 per cent reported findings of clinical trials while the rest were reviews, opinion pieces, or other types of research including animal studies.
Around 88 per cent of registered trials had authors who either received formula industry funding or were directly affiliated with industry, the researchers said.
EASTMOJO PREMIUM
Help sustain honest journalism.
These are observational findings and the researchers point to some limitations, such as possible inconsistencies in data collection or missing products, which could have affected their results.
Nigel Rollins of the World Health Organization noted that in a busy world, health professionals and families lack the time to properly scrutinise claims, but points out that self-regulation has not worked, and responsible, ethical marketing by the formula industry seems unlikely.
“Regulatory authorities must therefore decide whether the use of such apparently misleading evidence is acceptable or hold the formula industry to higher standards, require better products based on high quality evidence, and review standards,” he added in a linked editorial.
Also Read | On-demand male contraceptive found effective in early trial