Introduce complementary feeding between 3-4 and 6 months, suggests EFSA opinion

18 Apr 2019 --- The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has suggested that the complementary feeding of infants should begin between 3-4 and 6 months. The panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) reviewed around 300 studies to form its scientific opinion on this topic and is now calling on stakeholders and other interested parties to provide feedback.

When breast milk is no longer enough to meet the nutritional needs of an infant, complementary foods should be added to the diet. The transition from exclusive breastfeeding to family foods, referred to as complementary feeding, is a very vulnerable period. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), it is the time when malnutrition starts in many infants, contributing significantly to the high prevalence of malnutrition in children under five years of age worldwide. 

EFSA concluded that the appropriate age to introduce complementary foods depends on the infant’s characteristics and development, even more so in preterm infants. In most infants, this age is between about 3-4 and 6 months.

It also concluded that most infants do not need complementary foods for nutritional reasons until around 6 months, except for some exclusively breastfed infants at risk of iron depletion. There is also insufficient data to determine the precise age at which complementary foods should be introduced to all infants in Europe.

Click to EnlargeWhen breast milk is no longer enough to meet the nutritional needs of an infant, complementary foods should be added to the diet.Moreover, there is no evidence that early introduction of potentially allergenic foods – such as egg, cereals, fish and peanuts – increases the risk of children developing allergies. Lastly, there is no evidence for either beneficial or adverse effects of introducing foods containing gluten earlier than six months of age.

The first 1,000 days
The infant nutrition space can be a complicated one to navigate. The first 1,000 days – from conception to the second birthday – have been highlighted as a crucial time, as growth during this period is faster and more critical than the rest of life. 

Also, there are not only emotive ties linked to nourishing infants, but also regulatory and legal restrictions. The level of food safety for the industry, as well as regulatory standards and quality requirements, continue to increase.

This has not come as a detriment, however, to the growing infant formula market. According to Innova Market Insights, growing demand from emerging economies such as Asia owing to rapid urbanization, large population bases and higher purchasing power, preference for organic formula, fortified formulas for higher nutrition and a need for portable solutions are fuelling growth of the baby formula and milk category. 

According to the market researcher, the relative development of baby formula/milk launches versus the Baby and Toddlers category had a CAGR (2013 TO 2018) of 22 percent, compared to 16 percent, demonstrating the higher NPD growth in the baby space. The CAGR value for global baby formula/milk sales was also estimated to be roughly 9 percent between 2015 and 2017.

Consumer trust could be one facet driving strict safety regulations, in light of some very high-profile scandals, such as the 2008 Chinese infant formula safety scandal, where melamine contamination was found in a range of products.

Moreover, once infant formula has passed strict food safety procedures, marketing recommendations around BMS are also stringent. To encourage as many women as possible to breastfeed until an infant is at least 6 months old, the WHO regulates the promotion of BMS, instead advocating that mothers can make the best feeding choices through access to impartial, adequate information that is free from commercial influences. The inappropriate marketing of Breast Milk Substitute (BMS) may negatively affect choice and ability of a mother to breastfeed her infant.

Earlier this month, infant nutrition market leader Nestlé faced some severe criticism from Changing Markets Foundation (CMF), which criticized the conglomerate for using science as “merely a marketing tool to boost sales of its infant nutrition portfolio.” The environmental and social NGO is calling on Nestlé to step up in the breast milk substitute space following the publication of a report which alleges that so far Nestlé has failed to fulfill its previous commitments to making changes to its infant formula ranges. These include removing sucrose and vanilla compounds from all its products for babies aged under 12 months and removing contradictory nutritional advice on sucrose and vanilla flavorings. 

However, Nestlé responded saying that its promotional activities and products are in line with local regulations and standards, while insisting, in a statement sent to our sister website FoodIngredientsFirst, that “breast milk is the best nutritional choice for an infant and that breastfeeding plays a fundamental role in a baby’s growth and development during the first 1,000 days.”

By Laxmi Haigh

To contact our editorial team please email us at editorial@cnsmedia.com