MEPs vote in favour of infant formula firms
The omega-3 additive, known as DHA for short, occurs naturally in breast milk but there is no solid evidence that its synthetic variety plays the same role in helping brain and eye development in babies. Some scientists have expressed safety concerns.
Under EU legislation no claims can be made for food that are not scientifically proven, but the European Commission proposed to allow the baby formula company, Mead Johnson, to claim that DHA “contributes to the normal visual development of infants up to 12 months of age”.
Last month the US Federal Trade Commission banned the marketers of children’s vitamins from claiming that DHA “promotes brain or eye health or any other health benefit, unless the claim is true and backed by competent and reliable scientific evidence”. They were ordered to compensate purchasers of the Disney and Marvel vitamins.
Labour MEP Nessa Childers was one of four MEPs who put forward the motion to prevent the claim being used. “This is a defeat for families with young babies and I am disappointed that many conservative MEPs have stood with big business interests on this issue.
“This vote opens the door to further aggressive marketing on food products, which are not backed up by sound scientific evidence,” she said.
Some studies have found that synthetic DHA — chemically developed usually from fermented algae and fungus — has no effect while, Ms Childers said, one found that 10 years later it could lead to higher blood pressure.
The WHO said it was concerned that health claims were being used to promote breast milk substitutes, and called on member states to “end inappropriate promotion of food for infants and young children” and ensure health and nutrition claims are not used.
They also raised concerns about the growing trend of formula manufacturers producing “follow-up milk”. Mead Johnson says it intends to use the health claims for DHA in such formula.