Formula milk consumption has increased significantly over the past two decades, rising from 3.5 kg per child in 2005 to 7.4 kg per child in 2019. Despite being rarely medically necessary, formula feeding has become widely accepted due to industrialisation and aggressive marketing strategies. While it provides an alternative to breastfeeding, formula milk carries potential health risks, both in the short and long term. Infants consuming high amounts of formula, sometimes up to 20% of their body weight daily, may face issues such as burns, colic, constipation, pneumonia, developmental delays, and even fatal diarrhoea.
Breastfeeding is widely recognised as the optimal form of nutrition for infants, providing essential nutrients and immune system support. Organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) strongly advocate for exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life. However, due to aggressive marketing, misinformation, and socioeconomic factors, many parents choose formula feeding instead. Understanding the implications of formula consumption requires thorough scientific research, which should be unbiased and transparent. Unfortunately, the formula industry often influences the studies that assess its products, leading to concerns about the reliability of research findings.
Clinical Trials in Formula Milk Research
Clinical trials play a crucial role in ensuring the safety and efficacy of formula milk products. These trials also serve as a foundation for marketing claims made by formula manufacturers. Given the widespread use of formula, it is imperative that research in this area remains rigorous, transparent, and unbiased. However, concerns have emerged regarding the methodology and reporting of many formula milk trials, raising questions about their reliability.
Scientific studies should be conducted with a clear objective, a well-structured methodology, and unbiased reporting. In the pharmaceutical industry, rigorous clinical trials with strict regulatory oversight are required before a product reaches the market. While formula milk is not classified as a drug, its impact on infant health is significant enough to warrant similar scrutiny. Without robust clinical trials, there is a risk of misleading conclusions, which could result in long-term health consequences for infants who consume formula milk.
Bias and Lack of Transparency
One of the most significant concerns in formula milk research is the lack of transparency. Many trials fail to provide clear objectives, registered aims, or publicly available study protocols, making it difficult to assess the credibility of their findings. Selective reporting is another major issue, as outcomes are often presented in ways that favour formula products while downplaying potential risks.
Researchers must adhere to strict reporting guidelines to ensure that their findings are accurate and reflect the true effects of formula milk consumption. However, many formula trials selectively report favourable outcomes, ignoring or downplaying adverse effects. This lack of transparency misleads both healthcare professionals and parents who rely on scientific research to make informed decisions. The absence of publicly accessible protocols makes it challenging for independent researchers to verify study claims or conduct meta-analyses to assess formula milk’s overall impact on infant health.
The risk of bias is also notably high in formula trials. Researchers have been found to exclude certain participants inappropriately, leading to skewed results. Additionally, publication bias is prevalent, with 90% of trials reporting positive conclusions about formula products despite apparent methodological flaws. This raises questions about the integrity of the research being used to support formula milk marketing.
Influence of Industry and Ethical Concerns
Industry influence further complicates the credibility of formula trials. Many researchers conducting these studies have financial ties to formula manufacturers, creating conflicts of interest. In some cases, clinical trials appear to be driven more by marketing objectives than by scientific inquiry. This prioritisation of commercial interests over infant health has sparked widespread concern among public health experts and regulatory bodies.
Formula trials may also violate established ethical guidelines. The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes prohibits providing free formula to participants, yet many studies fail to adhere to this rule. Only 12% of trials explicitly ensure that breastfeeding is not undermined, raising ethical concerns about the impact of such research on maternal and infant health. Additionally, many formula studies may fall short of meeting the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, which governs medical research involving human subjects.
Ethical concerns also extend to the way participants are recruited and how trial results are communicated. Some studies enrol participants without fully informing them about the potential risks of formula feeding. Others may use misleading language that makes formula appear as beneficial as breast milk, which is not scientifically accurate. Ethical breaches in clinical trials can have long-lasting effects, particularly when they mislead parents and caregivers into believing that formula feeding is superior or equivalent to breastfeeding.
Policy and Regulatory Implications
Given these concerns, greater oversight and regulatory reforms are necessary to ensure the integrity of formula milk research. Policy changes should include stricter guidelines on health and nutrition claims in formula marketing to prevent misleading information from influencing consumer choices. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has identified formula marketing as a major barrier to breastfeeding promotion, further accentuation the need for stronger regulations.
Regulatory agencies should also enforce requirements for formula manufacturers to conduct unbiased and transparent clinical trials. Independent monitoring of these studies can help reduce industry influence and ensure that research findings are reported accurately. Governments and public health organisations must work together to establish clear regulations that prioritise infant health over corporate profits.
Transparency measures must be improved to ensure that clinical trials adhere to rigorous scientific standards. Ethical guidelines should be reinforced to protect the interests of infants and mothers. Without these changes, biased formula research could continue to mislead parents and healthcare professionals, eventually undermining breastfeeding and infant health.
Limitations of Existing Research
Despite the growing awareness of bias in formula trials, research on this issue remains limited. The review of formula trials conducted since 2015 indicates that many studies remain unpublished or unregistered, making it difficult to obtain a complete picture of the industry’s practices. Researchers and funders often refuse to share study protocols or clinical reports, further hindering transparency.
Furthermore, while the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB2) tool was used in the review, it has faced criticism regarding its reproducibility. Some findings remain exploratory due to variations in data quality and small sample sizes. Although no formal comparison was made between formula trials and other clinical trials, the level of bias observed appears to be similar to that seen in pharmaceutical research.
Future studies should focus on improving transparency and reducing bias in formula research. More independent trials conducted by non-industry-affiliated researchers are needed to provide a more accurate assessment of formula milk’s health effects. Additionally, international regulatory bodies must implement stricter policies to ensure that all formula-related studies are conducted and reported ethically.
Conclusion
Formula milk trials are plagued by unreliable data, biased outcomes, and a lack of scientific rigor. Without major reforms, misleading claims will persist, posing risks to infant health and undermining breastfeeding. To address these concerns, policymakers, researchers, and regulatory bodies must prioritise transparency, ethical standards, and scientific integrity in formula milk research. Only through these measures can reliable, unbiased information guide infant nutrition and public health policies.
Governments and regulatory agencies must take action to close loopholes that allow industry-driven research to dictate infant feeding guidelines. The priority should always be the well-being of infants, ensuring that their nutrition is based on scientific evidence rather than commercial interests. Increased public awareness, advocacy for ethical research practices, and stronger policies can help create a more trustworthy sector for infant nutrition research.
Reference
Helfer, B., Leonardi-Bee, J., Mundell, A., Parr, C., Ierodiakonou, D., Garcia-Larsen, V., Kroeger, C. M., Dai, Z., Man, A., Jobson, J., Dewji, F., Kunc, M., Bero, L., & Boyle, R. J. (2021). Conduct and reporting of formula milk trials: systematic review. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 375, n2202. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2202
Boyle, R. J., Ierodiakonou, D., & Khan, T. (2016). Hydrolysed formula and risk of allergic or autoimmune disease: systematic review and metaanalysis. BMJ, 352. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i974
Jarrold, K., Helfer, B., Eskander, M., Crawley, H., Trabulsi, J., Caulfield, L. E., Duffy, G., Garcia-Larsen, V., Hayward, D., Hyde, M., Jeffries, S., Knip, M., Leonardi-Bee, J., Loder, E., Lodge, C. J., Lowe, A. J., McGuire, W., Osborn, D., Przyrembel, H., … Boyle, R. J. (2020). Guidance for the conduct and reporting of clinical trials of breast milk substitutes. JAMA Pediatrics, 174(9), 874–881. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0578
World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki – ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. WMA, 1964.