A recent study, the results of which were published in the British Medical Journal, showed that infant formula products that parents buy as a substitute for breast milk are generally not subject to careful examination and may contain misleading information regarding nutritional benefits.
These substitutes, made for example from cow’s milk proteins, represent a growing market in the world. Its manufacturers say this formula gives babies the same nutritional benefits as breast milk.
Therefore, producers of these food types must conduct systematic clinical trials to prove the nutritional value of these products like organic infant formula.
However, these experiments are “not reliable”, according to the authors of the study, the results of which were published in the journal “BMG” on Thursday.
The study’s authors have monitored 125 trials since 2015 and found that four out of five trials had enough gaps to raise doubts about their conclusions.
For example, many experiments before they were conducted didn’t make it clear what ingredients they made. For the sake of credibility, any good clinical study should be clear from the outset about its goals, to prevent disproportionate results.
Another problem is that some trials arbitrarily exclude some infants from the test groups, raising fears of errors in the comparison process.
Ultimately, these experiments lead to “almost always positive results”, according to the study authors, who considered that the manufacturers of these products were closely involved in the studies, which would lose their independence.
The study authors considered that the experiments lack the necessary controls to ensure that the infants involved in the experiments do not face any risks, especially in terms of lack of nutrition.
The study concluded that it is necessary to make a significant change in the way experiments are conducted and their results published “so that consumers do not encounter misleading information.”