New Zealand scraps infant formula standard – evidence shows it’s a step backwards

The government’s recent decision to withdraw from the joint Australian and New Zealand infant formula standard is a step in the wrong direction for child health policy.

Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard said New Zealand now plans to develop its own standard after Australia declined to review labelling restrictions on the proposed common standard.

The standard would introduce controls on the claims that manufacturers can make on product labels and would also restrict the sale of specialist preparations to pharmacies and healthcare professionals.

This is significant because only one in ten babies in New Zealand is exclusively breastfed for six months.

Formula milks are a safe alternative for families who do not breastfeed. However, parents must choose from a wide range of manufacturers competing in a global industry worth more than $55 billion.

The financial stakes for industry players are high, and marketing is therefore key. There is no better way to do this than by appealing to the parental instinct to give their child the best.

However, research shows that many formula companies make unsubstantiated claims about the nutritional value of their products. Without a common standard for infant formula, addressing this becomes more difficult.

Global Formula Industry

The global infant formula market is highly lucrative and driven by high prices, especially for premium and specialty formulas.

Formula consumption for infants under six months of age has increased in upper- and middle-income regions, including Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East.

Compared to the size of the formula milk industry, which spends an estimated $2–3 billion on marketing worldwide, public health investment in breastfeeding support is minimal.

The United States spends about $60 million a year on a nutrition program for women, infants and children, compared with $3 billion for the infant formula market. In the United Kingdom, public health funding for breastfeeding support is about £14 million a year, compared with £200 million for the infant formula market.

The formula market in Australia and New Zealand is estimated to be worth approximately A$500 million annually.

The New Zealand Ministry of Health has been awarded NZ$35 million over four years (2020-2024) to support the maternity sector through the expansion of the Motherhood Action Plan. This includes a national breastfeeding strategy.

Unsubstantiated claims of health benefits

As scientists learn more about the composition of breast milk and infant development, formula manufacturers are trying to fine-tune the ingredients of their products by adding new components, such as prebiotics and probiotics.

However, the way biological systems work is not that simple, and synthetic forms of added ingredients do not work in the same way as natural ones. Modified products will never be able to fully replicate the complexity and dynamic composition of breast milk.

It is well documented that breastfed babies have fewer respiratory and digestive infections, better cognitive development, and are less likely to experience developmental delays.

A large randomized trial of over 17,000 infants found that breastfeeding was associated with better cognitive development, including better school-age outcomes.

Still, a major study published in 2023 found that unsubstantiated health claims are common marketing practices in the formula industry. It found that most infant formulas carry labels that claim the product supports brain development or a healthy immune system without providing scientific references.

No scientific evidence

A recent study conducted in 15 countries, including Australia, examined the specific health and nutrition claims made by infant formula manufacturers on product labels and websites.

The study also examined the scientific evidence cited to support these claims, most of which focused on positive effects on brain development, immunity and growth.

For the majority (74%) of products making specific health claims, no scientific references were provided. Most of the remaining evidence was considered to have a high risk of bias, and more than 80% of the authors were affiliated with the formula industry.

On the other hand, independent reviews have clearly questioned the benefits of added ingredients, reporting that they do not promote long-term cognitive benefits compared with standard infant formulas. And there is no solid evidence to recommend the use of prebiotic-enriched formulas.

Marketing code

Although infant formula is a safe alternative, the benefits of breastfeeding are extensive, including positive impacts on infant and maternal health, society, and the environment. Breastfeeding is therefore a key public health strategy.

To protect consumers from the marketing strategies of the formula milk industry, the World Health Organization established the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes in 1981. The Code restricts advertising, free samples and promotional activities related to breast-milk substitutes. Compliance is enforced through national regulations and local monitoring mechanisms.

Countries like Norway and the Philippines, where the code is strictly enforced, have high exclusive breastfeeding rates (around 80%). In contrast, countries like the US and China, where the code is not fully implemented, have much lower rates (around 20%).

New Zealand only partially complies with the Code because it is administered primarily through voluntary agreements rather than regulations and policies.

One of the proposals in the Australia-New Zealand joint standard for infant formula would aim to address legal shortcomings, particularly in the regulatory framework, product definitions, nutrient composition and restrictions on additives and contaminants.

The proposed regulations would allow families to make unbiased, informed decisions, free from unsubstantiated nutritional claims or unnecessary added ingredients. The decision not to adopt the standard is a step backward.

This article is reprinted from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.