ArticleAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2023
Perspective: Is It Time to Revise the Current Nutrient Requirements for Infant Formulas Principally Established in 1980?
Article in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Early-Life Nutritional Determinants of Pediatric MASLD.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Emerging regulated cell death mechanisms in bone remodeling: decoding ferroptosis, cuproptosis, disulfidptosis, and PANoptosis as therapeutic targets for skeletal disorders.Cell death discovery · 2025Review
- Policy changes to US federal infant feeding laws and regulations from 2014-2023: evidence that the 2022 infant formula shortage had a narrow policy impact.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Addressing Infant and Young Child Feeding Recommendations From a Planetary Health Perspective.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Because of the production of nutrient-deficient infant formulas (IFs), the United States Congress passed regulations on the composition and production of IF, referred to as the Infant Formula Act (IFA), in 1980, which was amended in 1986. More detailed FDA rules have been created since then, specifying the ranges or minimum intakes of nutrients and providing details for the safe production and evaluation of infant formulas. Although generally effective in ensuring safe IF, recent events have made it clear that a re-evaluation of aspects of all the nutrient composition regulations for IF is needed, including consideration of adding requirements related to bioactive nutrients not mentioned in the IFA. We propose that, as principal examples, the requirement for iron content needs to be re-evaluated and that DHA and AA should be considered for addition to the nutrient requirements after scientific review by a panel such as those established by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Additionally, there is no specific requirement in current FDA regulations for the energy density of IF, and this should be added alongside potential revisions of the protein requirement. It would also be ideal to have specific FDA rules on nutrient intakes for premature infants as these are exempted from the specific nutrient regulations of the amended IFA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.