A study published Wednesday in the BMJ points out that the health claims made by artificial baby milks often go unsubstantiated. The authors ask for plain packaging.
The vast majority of health claims touted by infant formula have “little or no scientific evidence”, according to a study published on Wednesday in the British Medical Journalwhose authors call for neutral packaging for these products.
The publication of this study comes a week after a series of articles appeared in the scientific journal The Lancet who call 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.
Health authorities – including the World Health Organization – recommend giving priority to breastfeeding, because of its health benefits for babies. WHO also regrets that “inappropriate marketing of breast-milk substitutes continues to undermine efforts to improve rates and duration of breastfeeding worldwide”.
“Inappropriate” marketing
Daniel Munblit, honorary lecturer at Imperial College London and co-author of the study published in BMJdefends itself from any “crusade” of researchers against artificial milk, which must remain an option for mothers unable or unwilling to breastfeed.
“But we strongly oppose inappropriate infant formula marketing where it provides misleading claims that are not supported by solid evidence,” Munblit told AFP.
The scientist and an international team of researchers examined the health claims made for 608 products on the sites of infant formula manufacturers in fifteen countries, including the United States, India, the United Kingdom and Nigeria . France is not one of them.
Few scientific references
Sales pitches claim benefits for baby’s brain development, immune system strengthening and growth. But half of the targeted products did not link the claimed health benefit to a specific ingredient, according to the study released Thursday. And three quarters of these products do not mention any scientific reference attesting to these supposed benefits.
Only 14% of the products have undergone registered clinical trials on humans. However, 90% of these trials were at high risk of bias, such as missing data or findings that did not truly support the selling point, according to the study.
And above all, for 90% of clinical trials, the authors received funding or had links with industry, it added.
