A STUDY investigating if there is any link between types of formula milk used in infancy and later academic exam performance, has concluded that there is no benefit to enriched formulas.
Researchers from the UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health and Institute of Education led the inquiry, now published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).
Accounting for a variety of different enriched formulas, the results did not indicate any distinct difference in secondary school attainment.
Infant formulas are widely used as a substitute or supplement for breast milk, with rates of breastfeeding for longer than six weeks at a low level in many countries.
Breastfeeding is considered best for infant nutrition, but formulas are an important alternative, currently consumed by 60% of babies across the world who are less than six months old.
During this study, the following formulas were compared:
- Formula milk enriched with a long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid (LCPUFA), which is a lipid important for healthy brain development. LCPUFA is also a natural constituent of breast milk.
- Formula milk with added iron.
- Formula milk with higher concentrations of macronutrients; these are the nutrients which the human body needs in the largest quantities, comprising carbohydrates, fat and protein.
- Formula milk with added sn-2 palmitate or nucleotides, a fatty acid and one of the building blocks for DNA, respectively. Enrichment with these is not thought to bear any relationship to cognition.
The initial research was carried out at five hospitals between August 1993 and October 2001, through seven randomised trials.
Following up in 2018, the data from these trials was compared with school records for 91.2% of the original 1,763 individuals in the study group, taking into consideration eligibility for special educational needs support.
Discussing the outcome, the authors wrote: “In summary, differences in academic performance between modified and standard formulas were consistent with differences measured in the original trials and in the external literature; that is, no benefit of the infant formula modifications on cognitive outcomes.”
They added: “This study sets a precedent for other trials and cohorts to use linkage to administrative data to answer important questions about long term outcomes in children and young people.”
Examining results from children aged 11 and 16, no difference was identified in performance for Maths or English exams at age 16.
At age 11, there was no detectable difference in Maths or English performance for most of the different formulas.
However, researchers noted that children given the LCPUFA supplemented formula scored lower in both subjects at this level.
Writing in the journal’s editorial, researchers from Glasgow University concluded: “Recently published evidence suggests a need to better regulate research into infant formulas and to ensure that this evidence is used to remove unnecessary and potentially harmful nutrients from formula milk, and to prevent misleading promotional claims.”
Researchers have highlighted that formulas for baby milk have changed over the years since the trial began.
This is a particularly important consideration, because advancements have helped improve infant survival and these babies could have different sensitivities to the forms of enrichment investigated.
