Eight months after the publication of a study by the World Health Organization (WHO), new scientific work dismantles the commercial arguments of infant milk brands. The vast majority of health claims touted by infant formula manufacturers turn out to be unfounded. Half of the products studied are not linked to any specific ingredient. Three-quarters do not mention any scientific reference proving the alleged benefits.
Optimal quality of sleep, a faster brain, easier digestion… All these promises which are shown in bold strokes on the packages turn out to be marketing arguments based, for the majority of products, on emptiness. “It is clear that most parents are exposed to the marketing of infant formula during pregnancy or the postnatal period and are often misled by claims,” say the authors of thestudy published this Thursday, February 16 in the British Medical Journal.
To reach these conclusions, the international team of researchers involved in this research examined the health arguments put forward for 608 products in fifteen countries. Among them: India, Nigeria, the United Kingdom and the United States. Not France. The publication of this survey conducted between 2020 and 2022 comes just one week after a series of articles published in the scientific journal “The Lancet”calling for stricter regulations imposed on manufacturers, which increases the pressure on the public authorities.
If Daniel Munblit, honorary lecturer at Imperial College London and co-author of this new study, defends himself from any “crusade” against artificial milks, he calls for a more rigorous follow-up of the arguments put forward. Only 14% of the products examined by the battalion of researchers of which he is a part have been the subject of registered clinical trials on humans. A figure that is too meager which is moreover disputed. 90% of these trials receive industry-related funding, adds Daniel Munblit. Only four trials studied showed no conflict of interest between the author and a firm.
Faced with the “lack of transparency” on the nutritional and health claims of these products, the report invites parents to favor breastfeeding. Like the First Steps Nutrition Trust associations or Unicef, Daniel Munblit and his colleagues praise its usefulness. “The perceived benefits of industrial infant formula over breastfeeding may be detrimental to breastfeeding. Suboptimal breastfeeding is estimated to result in approximately 600,000 child deaths each year from pneumonia and diarrhea and 100 000 maternal deaths from ovarian or breast cancer”, details the study.
Artificial milk must however remain an option offered to mothers unable or unwilling to breastfeed in the eyes of Daniel Munblit. He therefore does not ask for its ban but rather calls for the establishment of neutral packaging. The initiative would prevent the removal from supermarket shelves of a product widely consumed throughout the world while reducing the effects of sometimes misleading marketing. The report also highlights the progress made in recent years in “the implementation of mandatory composition and information requirements for infant formula” and therefore calls on manufacturers to review their copy on the commercial side.
