A brief history of infant milks

Before the 20th century, infants not fed on human milk were unlikely to reach their first birthday. Many infants who were unable to be breastfed by their mothers were wet-nursed (given breastmilk by a woman other than the child’s mother). Other less fortunate infants were ‘dry-nursed’. Dry nursing involved feeding an infant on a home-prepared mixture based on a liquid, either water or milk, mixed with finely ground grains. However, the majority of infants died if they did not have access to breastmilk.

The first commercial infant formula was produced in 1867, devised by Justus von Liebig, a German chemist, and sold as Liebig’s Perfect Infant Food. This consisted of wheat flour, cows’ milk, malt flour and potassium bicarbonate. The product was initially sold in liquid form but soon became available as a powder with added pea flour and a lower milk content. The commercial success of this product quickly gave rise to competitors such as Mellin’s Infant Food, Ridge’s Food for Infants and Nestlé’s Milk made from milk and cereal in Switzerland, and often credited as the first international infant formula brand. The term ‘formula’ is derived from Thomas Morgan Botch’s approach to ‘percentage feeding’. He coined the term when he was trying to devise the best mix of the various constituents that make up baby formula in the mid 19th century.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, nutrition scientists continued to analyse human milk and attempt to make infant formulas that more closely matched the composition of human milk. Maltose and dextrins were believed to be nutritionally important (even though these are not present in breastmilk), and in 1912 the Mead Johnson Company released a milk additive called Dextri-Maltose. This formula was only made available to mothers by doctors. In 1919, milk fats were replaced with a blend of animal and vegetable fats as part of the continued drive to simulate human milk more closely. This formula was called SMA, which stood for ‘simulated milk adapted’.

In the late 1920s, Alfred Bosworth released Similac (for ‘similar to lactation’), and Mead Johnson released Sobee. In 1941 National Dried Milk was introduced in the UK. This was a dried, full-fat, unmodified cows’ milk powder fortified with vitamin D. The milk was introduced by the Government as part of the Welfare Food Service and was intended for families with babies or children who could not afford or otherwise obtain fresh milk during the period of milk rationing, but it continued to be used well into the 1970s. Commercial formulas did not begin to seriously compete with breastfeeding or home-made formula until the 1950s. Homemade formulas commonly used before this were based on diluted evaporated or sterilised milk and had the advantages of being readily available and inexpensive, although evaporated and sterilised milk are now recognised as being unsuitable for babies.

The reformulation of Similac in 1951, and the introduction (by Mead Johnson) of Enfamil in 1959, were accompanied by marketing campaigns and the provision of inexpensive formula to hospitals. By the early 1960s the use of commercial formulas was widespread.

By the mid-1960s most infant formulas were fortified with iron, differences in the whey:casein ratio of cows’ milk and human milk were recognised, and most infant formula became wheybased. The renal solute load of infant formula was also considered in the 1960s and recommendations were made to reduce the potential renal solute load in an effort to reduce the prevalence of hypernatraemic dehydration. This condition had been associated with unmodified cows’ milk formula with a high sodium content. The high phosphate content of formulas based on unmodified cows’ milk caused problems of tetany and convulsions in some infants. In the UK, recommendations on infant feeding in the 1970s lowered the acceptable levels of sodium, phosphate and protein in infant formulas, and National Dried Milk, which was based on unmodified cows’ milk and which required paretns to add sugar to the formula, was withdrawn in 1976.

Since the early 1970s, industrial countries have witnessed an increase in breastfeeding among children from newborn to 6 months of age. This upward trend in breastfeeding has been accompanied by a deferment in the average age of introduction of other foods and cows’ milk as the main drink, resulting in increased use of both breastfeeding and infant formula between the ages of 3-12 months. Later weaning and concerns over iron deficiency have also led to the development of other infant milk drinks for use into the second year of life. The last 25 years have also seen further changes in infant milk composition, with the addition of individual ingredients, which aim to make infant milk closer in composition to breastmilk. For example, taurine was first added in 1984, nucleotides in the late 1990s, and long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and prebiotics in the early 2000s. However, despite advances in the composition of infant milks, breastmilk contains over 300 components, which contribute to the health and well being of infants, compared with only about 75 at most in typical infant formula. The cells that pass from the mother and the wide range of other immunomodulatory factors in breastmilk cannot be recreated, and it is also likely that there are other important components in breastmilk yet to be identified.

Further information on the history of infant milks can be found in The politics of breastfeeding by Gabrielle Palmer (Palmer, 2009).


 Development of the regulation of infant milk composition

In 1974, the report Present day practice in infant feeding (Department of Health and Social Security, 1974) highlighted the decline in breastfeeding in the UK and the unsatisfactory composition of artificial milks then available. Following the publication in 1977 of a report on The composition of mature human milk (Department of Health and Social Security, 1977), which attempted to provide a basis for a compositional profile of human milk, the need for a standard for the composition of artificial milks was realised. Clear guidance on the composition of artificial feeds for the young infant were published by the Department of Health and Social Security in 1980 (Department of Health and Social Security, 1980), and in that report it was acknowledged that adequacy of artificial feeds should be assessed not only on nutrient content but also on the bioavailability of nutrients, nutrient balance and clinical and metabolic outcomes.

From 1989, legislation relating to infant milk composition has been made by the Council of Europe, and the first European Commission Directive on Infant Formulae and Follow-on Formulae was adopted in 1991. This specified the compositional and labelling requirements for milks for infants in good health during the first 4-6 months of life that all infant formulas sold in the European Union countries must comply with. Legislation was put into place in the UK in 2007, and there were some amendments to this, but from 2016 legislation on Foods for Special Groups comes into force, with delegated acts outlining the composition, labelling and marketing of infant formula, follow on formula and foods for special medical purpose. Directive EU 609/2013 came into force in the UK on July 20th 2016 as a Statutory Instrument attached to The Food Act, and highlights enforcement procedures and some basic principles, the delegated acts which came into force in February 2020 provide details on the composition, labelling and marketing of products.

For information on UK regulations see www.bflg-uk.org

In addition, the Codex Alimentarius of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization also provides guidance on the composition of infant formula and these standards are used widely internationally (Codex Alimentarius Committee, 2006). Because all Codex standards must be ‘consensus’ standards, with near unanimous consent, Codex faces difficult negotiations between countries and between competing interests before recommendations can be agreed. Codex has a committee which reviews Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, and the process of agreeing standards can often be long, as compromise is preferred over voting, making meetings vulnerable to lobbying by commercial interests. Codex also produces international standards for food safety, including standards on microbiological specifications for infant formula (see www.codexalimentarius.org)


 Infant feeding patterns in the UK

The most recently available national Infant Feeding Survey of parents across the UK (McAndrew et al, 2012) showed that, in 2010:

  • About a fifth of mothers (19%) did not initiate breastfeeding at birth.

  • 31% of parents introduced infant formula on the first day of life.

  • 43% of mothers who used both breast and formula feeding used formula at all or almost all feeds from birth.

  • By 1 week of age more than half of infants (52%) had had some infant formula, and by 6 weeks of age 73% of infants had been given infant formula.

  • By 4-10 weeks, 33% of infants were entirely fed on infant formula and 26% were given formula and breastmilk.

  • By 4-6 months of age, 60% of infants were entirely fed on infant formula.

  • By 9 months, 95% of infants had had some infant milk.

More recent data on initiation and breastfeeding at 6-8 weeks is available regionally each quarter but this varies in quality. The latest quarterly data for England shows little difference in the use of infant formula since the 2010 survey but some areas are seeing higher exclusive and any breastfeeding rates at 6-8 weeks.

The majority of infants in the UK aregiven infant formula during the first six months of life, despite Department of Health recommendations that breastfeeding should be the source of nutrition during this period. The Infant Feeding Survey does not ask parents what type of milk they offer their infant during the first few weeks of life (stage 1 of the survey covers the period 4-10 weeks, but the majority of infants in the survey are 4-6 weeks of age) as there is an assumption that this will be an appropriate first milk. When mothers were asked when they first used follow-on formula, 16% of parents reported that they did so before 6 months of age. This is despite recommendations on follow-on formula packaging that follow-on formula is not appropriate for infants under 6 months of age, and advice from the majority of health professionals that a change to follow-on formula is not necessary at any stage. Only 68% of mothers said they knew the difference between follow-on formula and formula. Nonworking women were more likely to use follow-on formula before 6 months of age.

Mothers who did use follow-on formula by 4-6 months said they did so on the advice of a health professional (17%) or because they thought it was better for the baby (18%) and 8% because they had seen information advertised. By the time their babies were 8-10 months of age, the majority of mothers were using follow-on formula. Data from the Diet and nutrition survey of infants and young children (Department of Health and Food Standards Agency, 2013) suggests that 38% of children aged 12-18 months drank some kind of formula and 62% drank none. Eight per cent of those who gave formula only used ready-to-feed formula for children of this age. This survey reported that 18% of children aged 12-18 months were given growing-up milks, and the mean intake was 342ml/day. These milks were also used by 3% of families with children aged 10-11 months with a mean intake 397ml/day in this survey. Amongst 12-18 month olds, 8% were still receiving breastmilk with an estimated volume of 290ml/day, 1% were still given first infant formula, 1% hungry baby formula, 16% follow-on formula and 3% other milk products.

Reference

McAndrew F, Thompson J, Fellows L, Large A, Speed M, Renfrew MJ (2012) Infant Feeding Survey 2010. Available at here.


 The infant milk market in the UK

The infant milk market in the UK is dominated by four major brands:

  • Aptamil (Nutricia, owned by Danone Early Life Nutrition)

  • Cow & Gate (Nutricia, owned by Danone Early Life Nutrition)

  • SMA Nutrition (owned by Nestlé)

  • Hipp Organic (owned by Hipp).

The UK baby milk market was worth £426 million in 2018. The Mintel Baby food and drink report (Mintel, 2019) reported that in 2018 Danone had 81% of the market by sales and 75% by volume. Aptamil was the brand leader accounting for 52% of all sales. Cow & Gate (also owned by Danone) had 31% of market share and SMA (Nestlé) 13%. Hipp had 4% of the market.

Both Aptamil and Cow & Gate brands received substantial advertising support in 2018, which they use to support the brand across a range of products. The total above the line, online display and direct mail advertising expenditure on baby food and drink was £16.5million in the UK in 2018. £13.2 million was spent on marketing infant milks, the majority of which is spent on follow-on formula advertising.

Mintel also looks at factors influencing the purchase of infant milks was also considered, and the main factor determining parental choice of milk amongst their panel was ‘brand’. This is important as it is the support given to brands through advertising, through the promotion of milks to health professionals and using health professionals as part of the online marketing to health professionals and at conferences that promotes the brand integrity. The report highlights the importance of ‘brand loyalty’ in the market and parent’s being loath to swap brands that they think suit their child. Companies spend considerable funds on promoting brands to health professionals, and in supporting health professionals through invitations to conferences, study days, paying for travel and accommodation at conferences, lunches and trips abroad to help maintain professional loyalty to their brand as well. Other key factors that impact on purchasing choices includes price, age range featured on the pack, easy availability through supermarket and the perception that the product covers a babies nutritional needs. Less important but still highlighted as factors are convenient packaging, products being organic, containing specific ingredients such as prebiotics, offering health benefits or designed for babies with special requirements.

Marketing reports reinforce the importance of advertising by companies to maintain their brand and market share and to promote new products and extend products as children age. The fact that brand is the most important factor for purchasers is seen as very positive in the commercial world, and highlights again the need to avoid the use of any materials produced by infant formula manufacturers by health care workers.

Two supermarket own-brand infant formula are currently available in the UK: Mamia at ALDI and Sainsbury’s ‘Little Ones’. Other infant milks such as Holle, NANNYcare, Kabrita and Kendamil formula have a small market share at the moment, and two brands are avaialble mail order only: Arla Baby & Me and Castlemil. Other milks from overseas may be available in UK retail outlets that cater for specific immigrant communities, and some shops may offer milks that are directly imported, and which may not conform to UK regulations on infant formula and follow-on formula. Infant milks from around the world are also sold on websites such as ebay. Parents should be strongly discouraged from buying any milk that has not been notified here in the UK.

Reference

Mintel (2019). Baby Foods and Drinks. Mintel. London.


The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes

By the early 1970s, the majority of babies in many developed countries were not being breastfed and most infant milks used were commercially produced. The increased use of infant milks was attributed not only to improvements in their nutritional composition but also to vigorous promotion by the manufacturing industry. The WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes was adopted by a Resolution of the World Health Assembly in 1981 (WHO, 1981). The Code bans all promotion of breastmilk substitutes and sets out requirements for labelling and information on infant feeding. Also, any activity which undermines breastfeeding violates the aim and spirit of the Code. The Code and its subsequent World Health Assembly Resolutions are intended as a minimum requirement in all countries. The Code covers all products marketed in a way which suggests they should replace breastfeeding, including all types of infant milks (including infant formula, follow on formula, toddler milks, specialised milks), baby foods, teas and juices, and equipment such as bottles, teats/nipples and other related equipment. Organisations such as Baby Milk Action in the UK, which is part of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), review compliance with the WHO Code and highlight examples of non-compliance.

For a 2017 summary of the Code and subsequent WHA resolutions see https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/254911/WHO-NMH-NHD-17.1- eng.pdf?ua=1

The UK was one of the strongest supporters of the International Code when it was adopted in 1981. Also, as a signatory to the 1990 Innocenti Declaration on the Protection, Support and Promotion of Breastfeeding, the UK Government committed itself to “taking action to give effect to the principles and aim of all the articles of the International Code ... in their entirety ...” and to enacting “imaginative legislation protecting the breastfeeding rights of working women ... by the year 1995.”

At the 1994 World Health Assembly, UK support for the Code was reiterated once again and the Government 1995 White paper The health of the nation, called for an increase in breastfeeding rates (Department of Health, 1992). The Government officially supported the UK Baby Friendly Initiative in which the International Code is the pivotal recommendation. Despite this, in March 1995, the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations were adopted as law in the UK, with this law falling short of the International Code in important respects. Most notably, it allows advertising of products through the healthcare system, in direct contravention of the WHO International Code.

Amongst the provisions of the 1995 legislation is a ban on the advertising and promotion of infant formula, but these measures are regarded as ineffectual by many breastfeeding advocacy groups and health professionals. Their view is that manufacturers have taken advantage of limitations in the scope of the regulations that have enabled them to advertise and promote follow-on formula in such a way that it is unclear whether the product being promoted is infant formula or follow-on formula. Current legislation (the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 2007) attempts to impose a few further limits on the advertising and promotion of infant milks, but has not prevented generic promotion of brand name, or the promotion of follow-up formula. We will report on new regulations coming in to force from the 22nd February 2020 (Brexit dependent) and the impact these may have on advertising and promotion in the next iteration of this report.

For information about the Code and the work of The Baby Feeding Law Group see www.bflg-uk.org.


 The international infant milk market

The global infant nutrition market was valued at USD 71.40 billion in 2018 and is estimated to reach USD 98.90 billion in 2024. Infant milks are the fastest growing packaged food product in the world, with most of the growth in Asia. As in the UK, the international infant milk market is dominated by a small number of companies who market their products under a wide range of brand names. The USA market is dominated by Abbott and Mead Johnson (owned by Reckitt Benckiser), accounting for 80% of products sold, and more than half of infant milks sold in the USA are sold through supported government welfare programmes (Kent, 2006). The Western European market is approximately the same size as the USA market in volume terms, and the leading companies are Nestlé and Danone.

It is not easy to find information about where infant milks are made, as ingredients can be sourced from one country and processed elsewhere. It is thought that Ireland produces 0% of the base powders for Danone in Europe as well as many milks for direct export to China. Milks sold in the UK are also likely to be made in a number of European countries, primarily France and Germany. Increasingly, companies are setting up infant formula production in parts of Eastern Europe and Asia and New Zealand manufactures milk for the Chinese and Asian sub-continent market.

More information on the global infant formula market can be found through the International Baby Food Action Network (www.ibfan.org)