Australia Challenges WHO Over Infant Feeding: National Evidence vs. Global Guidelines
- PYD
- Apr 22
- 2 min read
A growing rift has emerged between WHO recommendations and Australia’s national infant feeding guidelines. WHO advocates introducing animal milk at six months, but Australia’s experts warn this may endanger infant nutrition due to lower iron content and unclear consultation processes.
Insights & Strategic Moves:
WHO vs. National Policy: WHO advises complementary feeding, including animal milk, from six months. Australia, New Zealand, the US, and EU recommend delaying animal milk until 12 months due to low iron levels compared to fortified formula.
Industry Backlash: Eleven paediatric bodies and the Infant Nutrition Council (INC) jointly criticised WHO’s lack of consultation. INC CEO Jonathan Chew warned the guidance could confuse parents and create risks in developed markets.
Iron Absorption Gap: Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council maintains that formula milk—fortified with iron—better supports infants’ needs during their first year than animal milk or solids alone.
Regulatory Mismatch: WHO defines all milk products for children under 36 months as breast milk substitutes. Australia’s Food Standards Code distinguishes infant formula (0–12 months) from toddler products (12–36 months), which serve different dietary roles.
Calls for Local Authority: INC insists local standards, developed from national data, are more relevant than WHO’s globalised approach. Formula products in Australia are strictly regulated, and no breaches of local rules have been reported—only misalignment with WHO guidance.
Ongoing Debate: Critics often cite WHO to demand stricter rules, but INC argues developed nations should prioritise national evidence and safeguard policy autonomy in infant health.
As scrutiny intensifies, Australia is likely to reaffirm its science-based regulatory path, potentially prompting WHO to refine its one-size-fits-all guidance model.
Infant feeding policy must reflect local health realities—Australia’s evidence-based standards offer a critical counterbalance to WHO’s global approach.
Comments