Baby milk campaign group claims EFSA oversight in DHA approval

By Ben Bouckley

- Last updated on GMT

Related tags Omega-3 form dha Health claim Infant Milk Breastfeeding Efsa

An approved EFSA claims that omega-3 form DHA contributes to the visual development of infants risks misleading consumers, due to a committee oversight in approving the relevant health claim, says UK-based breast-feeding advocacy group Baby Milk Action.

US firm Mead Johnson had an Article 14 health claim​ approved by EFSA (the European Food Safety Authority) for Enfamil Lipil in March 2009 that states: “DHA has a structural and functional role in the retina, and DHA intake contributes to the visual development of infants up to 12 months of age.”

Subsequently ratified by the EC Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health, the claim now awaits European Council and Parliamentary approval, but is opposed by a trans-national MEP grouping that claims further scientific evidence is needed for claims relating to baby milk and increased public scrutiny.

Dossiers ‘cherry-pick’ research

Baby Milk Action group policy director, Patti Rundall OBE, is backing a the MEP-led veto of the claim, and told that she disagreed with EFSA’s opinion, based on 12 randomised controlled trials submitted by Mead Johnson:

“The danger is that people think breast milk can come in cans, and there’s no evidence that DHA works in follow-on milks," ​she said, adding that Mead Johnson had submitted some evidence to EFSA on its effectiveness in infant formulae, although this stopped far short of proof.

Advertising of infant formula (for infants up to 6 months old) is currently banned in some EU states (although permitted across the union in baby care books under the relevant Directive) while health claims face a wholesale ban. Recent UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) guidance called upon manufacturers to “make it clear that follow-on formula is intended for babies over six months. This includes clearly representing the age of babies in the adverts.”

Claim only allowed on follow-on

Rundall said: “The claim as we interpret it – ‘makes babies’ eyes better’ – when used in follow-on is a way of getting round this restriction. Under European regulations, it’s illegal to make it on infant formulae, but when this is sold alongside follow-on in shops, it risks misleading parents.”

This was especially pressing, Rundall said, given that infant formulas are allowed to carry several nutrition claims such as 'contains DHA' and a disease risk reduction claim, "worse than a health claim in my view, because it spawned all the hypoallergenic claims based on questionable science".

As regards the Article 14 opinion in question, she added: "EFSA approved the formula on a 0-12 month basis, but failed to realise that follow-on only starts at 6 months, and there’s no conclusive, independent evidence that it works at this stage”

“I don’t want to hammer EFSA, they’ve generally done a good job within the confines of the law, but submitted dossiers like this cherry-pick research, and are not systematic enough – along the lines of a Cochrane Review.”

EU Parliament could veto health claim

Rundall said that Labour Party MEP Glenis Wilmot had secured the opportunity to present a report on the issue in the Environment, Food Safety and Public Health Committee in March, which if supported by a majority would then proceed to the EU Parliament vote on vetoing the Article 14 claim.

“We’re not overly confident that we’ll win this, but it isn’t simply a breast/bottle issue, it’s about parents getting true, proper information on products, which they aren’t getting now,” ​said Rundall.

“If safe forms of DHA are found – and some studies are emerging that it might even raise blood pressure in babies – then we’ll all for including it in all formulas, but only as an essential ingredient, and without health claims.”

Rundall also said the group does not dispute DHA’s ability to benefit the visual development of infants, but questioned its overall efficacy when delivered via a bottle.

“DHA works well as a co-factor in breast milk, various enzymes and the general environment make it work properly, but things are different when it’s added to a dead, inert powder,”​ she said.

Related news

Show more

1 comment

More on the DHA Claim

Posted by Patti Rundall,

I would just like to clarify that the oversight lies mainly with the process and the fact that EFSA has no responsibility to look at the 'risk' having a claim on a particular product. This is left to the European Commission and the SCoFAH Committee. Also since EFSA found no evidence of efficacy for DHA added just to follow-on milk claims on these products are unsubstantiated. As regards infant formulas, the 2007 systematic review by the Cochrane Library, which included at least some of the studies cited by Mead Johnson, said: "This review found that feeding term infants with milk formula enriched with LCPUFA had no proven benefit regarding vision, cognition or physical growth."
Also - small point - its Rundall - not Randall!

For more information see my blog:

Report abuse

Follow us


View more