Breast may be best but don’t block omega-3 infant formula claims, says practitioner

By Shane Starling

- Last updated on GMT

Related tags: Breastfeeding, Infant formula, European food safety authority

All those in favour say "Eye". MEPs are set to vote on DHA baby milk claims in April
All those in favour say "Eye". MEPs are set to vote on DHA baby milk claims in April
The late move by a European Parliament committee to block the addition of DHA omega-3 claims to baby milk products across the EU bloc, would be a triumph of politics over science, a medical practitioner in the area has written.

Writing in the Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, Berthold Koletzko PhD, MD, from the Division of Metabolic and Nutritional Medicine at the University of Munich Medical Centre in Germany, said blocking the EFSA-approved claim would be detrimental to the health of infants and babies.

“Preventing communication of scientifically assured benefits of optimised products bears the risk that it may slow or even stop the significant quality improvements of foods for infants that has occurred over the last decades in numerous single steps, and which has led to large benefits for child health,”​ Dr Koletzko wrote.

“Therefore, it is truly important that science and not lobbying prevails in this matter.”

The long-running issue revolves around a 2009 Mead Johnson European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) health claim approval for its Enfamil Lipl product that read: “DHA intake contributes to the visual development of infants up to 12 months of age.”

The final claim related to infant formulas and follow-on formulas that contained 0.3 per cent DHA of total fatty acids.

The claim was approved at European Commission level but this month a European Parliament committee voted 30 votes to 28 that the Parliament should not authorise it. The full Parliament is due to vote on the claim in its April 4-7 session next month.

Dr Koletzko said the influential breast milk lobby group, Baby Milk Action, had effectively lobbied MEPs with what he called “pseudo-scientific” ​arguments.

He pointed to the fact that EFSA’s health claims panel had evaluated 43 scientific studies including 13 randomised clinical trials in handing in its opinion.

“It is very surprising and disturbing that the members of the European Parliament find such a profound scientific evaluation by an independent body less convincing than the arguments of a loud-mouthed lobbying group,”​ he wrote.

Breast is best?

He said safety concerns highlighted by the parliamentarians were not supported in the scientific literature and noted the support for DHA fortification from groups including the World Health Organization, the Child Health Foundation, the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the European Society for Paediatrics and the French Food Safety Authority.

“Perhaps one might question whether there should be any health claims made for infant food products, since breastfeeding is clearly considered the optimal form of infant feeding which therefore must be strongly protected, promoted and supported.

However, not all infants are fully breastfed during the first half year of life and partially breastfed thereafter. For these infants, safe infant formulae of the highest possible quality are required, and health care professionals and families should be able to receive appropriate information on their characteristics.”


MEPs including the British Labour MEP Glenis Willmott have disputed the EFSA opinion, believing there is not enough scientific consensus on the effect DHA (docosahexaenoic acid)-fortified baby milk has on infants.

“The European Commission has authorised this health claim, but independent studies say there is no proven link between artificially added DHA and eyesight, and some studies have found possible negative effects of DHA supplementation,” ​Willmott said.

“If an ingredient is genuinely found to be beneficial and risk free then it should be obligatory in all formula milk, and not be used as a marketing ploy by a specific brand.”

Related news

Show more

Related products

show more

Actilight® and infant nutrition: new perspectives

Actilight® and infant nutrition: new perspectives

Tereos | 31-Aug-2021 | Technical / White Paper

Addition of prebiotic ingredients to formulas started around 30 years ago and is widely recognized by experts. Actilight® scFOS is safe for use in infant...

Business case: private label iron supplements

Business case: private label iron supplements

PharmaLinea Ltd. | 18-May-2021 | Case Study

A line of clinically supported private label iron supplements by PharmaLinea is selling nearly 500.000 units/year in a market of under 20 million people.

The New Normal in Nutraceutical Supplements

The New Normal in Nutraceutical Supplements

ACG | 15-Mar-2021 | Technical / White Paper

With highly evolving health trends and immunity taking centre stage, a tectonic shift in interest among consumers from reactive to proactive healthcare...

Related suppliers


Show more

Response to comments posted

Posted by Prof. Berthold Koletzko,,

In response to the comments posted, I could not agree more that decisions on health policy should be based on scientific evidence. Indeed, this is the key message I tried to convey ín the commentary published in Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 2011;58(1):79-81, from which single statements have been cited by this website. I confirm that I am an independant academic researcher at the University of Munich employed as a public servant by the State of Bavaria. I follow the policy established by the University of Munich Medical Centre for its academic staff to provide full transparency declarations on any support provided by public or private stakeholders. In addition, I follow the policy of disclosure of potential conflicts of interests as established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, as exemplified by the publication cited in the comment where financial support received contributing to the cost of a scientific workshop was transparently reported. With regards to the cited commentary in Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, there were no conflicts of interest to be declared. For completeness, I should like to add that I did not participate „in the Nestle Symposium in India about DHA in formulas“ as suggested by Ms. Rundall; in fact I have never heard about that symposium before.
Prof. Berthold Koletzko, Univ. of Munich Medical Centre

Report abuse

Declarations of conflicts of interest please

Posted by Mike Brady,

Baby Milk Action believes that it is important the conflicts of interest are declared.

We note, for instance, that Professor Berthold Koletzko was lead author of a 2008 paper recommending DHA be added to formula. We also note the declaration included in that paper: "The scientific workshop held at Barcelona was financially supported by Martek Biosciences Corporation. BK is the recipient of a Freedom to Discover Award of the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, New York, NY, USA."

Martek Biosciences manufactures the DHA additives used by the majority of formula companies. Until recently (December 2009), Bristol Myers Squibb owned Mead Johnson, the company that filed the application to use the DHA claim which Prof. Koletzko is seeking to defend by labelling Baby Milk Action as a 'load-mouthed lobbying group'.

We believe the decision should be based on the evidence, that it is important to include evidence free from commercial influences and those that seek to influence policy should declare their interests.

Report abuse

inaccurate message

Posted by exuberance,

This article does not make it plain that MEPs and those who lobbied them against the claim have read the EFSA opinion which states, "there are no data from specific randomised controlled trials supporting a benefit of DHA supplementation starting at 6 months of life in infants fed a DHA-free formula in the first 6 months of life." MEPS were voting on a claim for follow-on milks which are only suitable after 6 months. They are voting against a misleading claim.

Report abuse

Follow us


View more