Marketing of baby food violates UK government guidelines by using inappropriate imagery and language that may discourage breastfeeding, according to a study.
The researchers who conducted the study said their results showed that the current guidelines were toothless and new legislation was needed to enforce them.
A UCL study found that two-thirds (67 percent) of packages of infant formula for babies under six months contain images that are not recommended by Department of Health and Human Services (DHSC) guidelines because they can idealize their use. These include images of baby animals, toys, cribs, and images of nursing mothers.
Many other packages, including follow-up formulas for babies over six months old, contained health claims (18 percent) such as “Contains all the nutrients your baby needs to grow strong and healthy,” which is ruled out by official recommendations. The majority (41 percent) stated the nutritional value of foods that manufacturers should avoid as recommended.
The UCL researchers also found reports that were not obvious health claims but could be understood as such. Among them was a statement that the company has been at the forefront of baby food research for 100 years and that its formula was “artfully designed with nature in mind.”
The researchers reached their conclusions after analyzing the formulations and images of 71 formula products available in UK supermarkets and pharmacies.
Text and graphics on baby formulas are regulated by law to ensure they do not interfere with breastfeeding. The legislation is set out in broad terms, and more detailed guidance from DHSC is intended to help companies comply with this provision.
However, companies are not required to follow the guidelines, and the research team has called for major legislation to be updated to prevent companies from inappropriately promoting bottle feeding.
First author Dr. Rana Conway said: “The current legislation is too vague and companies can interpret the rules as they see fit.
“Due to the lack of details, it was difficult for us to identify obvious irregularities in the packaging we analyzed. However, we have found many examples of companies that sell their products in ways that do not comply with DHSC regulations and use sophisticated marketing techniques to get around the rules.
“Previous research has shown that parents generally trust advertising claims and that these beliefs can influence infant feeding decisions, increase formula use, and undermine breastfeeding advice or decisions. Our findings raise concerns that marketing techniques are being used to mislead healthcare professionals about the similarity of formula to breast milk and the superiority of expensive products over cheaper ones.”
Lead author Dr. Claire Llewellyn said: “Legislation needs to be much more specific so that companies cannot circumvent recommendations to promote infant formula. Parents should be supported to make decisions about infant nutrition based on their own needs and those of their families, without commercial influence.”
Breastfeeding is recommended during the first six months of a child’s life. While the health benefits of breastfeeding are well known, the UK has one of the lowest rates in the world with only 1% of babies being exclusively breastfed for the first six months, compared to 19% in the US and 18% in the Netherlands . .
The health and nutritional claims of infant formula are not allowed for products not to be considered equal or superior to breast milk. The formula’s ingredients and nutritional value are also strictly controlled, so there are no significant nutritional differences between brands.
The researchers also found that the packaging of infant formula and follow-on formula is very similar, despite legislation requiring a clear distinction to prevent misuse. The two products should look different as companies may advertise and promote subsequent formulas, but it should not promote each other with similar infant formula branding.
Marketing and advertising of breast-milk substitutes has a great influence on nutritional decisions, as products are presented as “normal” or “ideal” foods for infants, rather than special foods for feeding when breastfeeding is not possible.
The researchers found that, according to DHSC guidelines, 72 percent of packages of infant and follow-up formula were rated as very similar. The law does not currently provide a definition of “similarity”, so there are no criteria for determining whether there have been violations.
Preprint of the study published in the journal nutrition for public health. DHSC was asked for their opinion.
Source: I News
I’m Raymond Molina, a professional writer and journalist with over 5 years of experience in the media industry. I currently work for 24 News Reporters, where I write for the health section of their news website. In my role, I am responsible for researching and writing stories on current health trends and issues. My articles are often seen as thought-provoking pieces that provide valuable insight into the state of society’s wellbeing.