Issue 125 infant and young child formula milks with ads

Page 1

PAEDIATRIC

INFANT AND YOUNG CHILD FORMULA MILKS: THE CURRENT UK MARKET Jacqui Lowdon Paediatric Dietitian, Team Leader Critical Care, Therapy & Dietetics, RMCH

The infant and young child formula milk market in the UK is dominated by four major brands. However, there is an increasing range of formulae becoming available even though infant and young child formula milks* are amongst the most strictly regulated foodstuffs. Here, Jacqui Lowdon takes a look at the products on the market and the related legislation and regulations.

Presently team leader for Critical Care and Burns, Jacqui previously specialised in gastroenterology and cystic fibrosis. Although her career to date has focused on the acute sector, Jacqui has a great interest in paediatric public health.

There are currently four major brands in the UK offering infant and young child formula milks: Aptamil (Nutricia, owned by Danone), Cow & Gate (Nutricia, owned by Danone), SMA Nutrition (owned by Nestlé) and HiPP Organic (owned by HiPP). This can make it difficult for parents to choose an appropriate formula for their infant, but also can make it difficult for health professionals to keep up to date (see Table 1, p21, 22). There are three types of standard formula: • Infant formula (IF) is designed to fully satisfy the nutritional needs of babies from birth to six months old, where a mother cannot or chooses not to breastfeed. • Follow-on formula (FOF) is designed to satisfy the nutritional requirements of infants from six months to 12 months in conjunction with complementary foods. • Young child formula (YCF) is suitable for young children from 12 to 36 months. • They can then be further divided into cows’ milk-based, goat milkbased and soya-based. There are then the formulae for lactose intolerance, reflux and partially hydrolysed formulae.

For full article references please email info@ networkhealth group.co.uk

LEGISLATION

Regulation EU No 2016/127;3 EU Directive 2006/141/EC41 Legislation is strictly enforced, incorporating the principles and aims of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO)

Code on Breastmilk Substitutes.2 In 2016, there was an increasing focus on the regulatory arena. In May, a call for banning of advertising of all formulae for the first three years of life was proposed by the World Health Assembly (WHA).3 At the same time, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) consulted its members on whether the RCPCH should receive any funding from formula milk companies. Later in 2016, a Bill was introduced to the House of Commons, Feeding Products for Babies and Children (Advertising and Promotion).4 Although “welcomed with appreciation” by its member states, the recent WHA Resolution was not ‘endorsed’, being concluded that its following proposals were too extreme: • to prohibit contact between healthcare professionals and industry; • to further restrict funding; and • to consider foods given to a child up to 36 months as breastmilk substitutes. The membership agreed that the RCPCH should continue to accept funding from formula milk companies, obviously within strict, specified conditions.5 They felt that, although any promotion of IF milk over breastfeeding is unacceptable, an open dialogue between manufacturers, researchers and healthcare professionals relating to clinical research and product development, is essential, so long as it is transparent and accountable. www.NHDmag.com June 2017 - Issue 125

19


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.