Marketing guidelines for infant and toddler formulas need to be scrapped and replaced with a stricter code of practice, leading health organisations say.
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) wants the voluntary, self-regulated industry agreement on the marketing of formula to be removed because it does not cover drinks for children between 12 months and three years.
At the moment, the code only governs the marketing of breast milk substitutes for infants up to 12 months.
"We need to scrap this voluntary code and replace it with the evidence-based best practice code," the organisation's president Professor Steve Robson said.
"Toddler milks are unnecessary, unhealthy and deceptively marketed as beneficial — they are a milk myth that needs to be busted."
Instead, the AMA suggests the introduction of a legislated, mandatory code covering children up to the age of three, in line with the World Health Organization's international rules that covers formulas for children up to three.
The call for stricter marketing rules is in response to an on-going consultation on the extension of the current Manufacturers and Importers (MAIF) Agreement for five more years.
A request was lodged by the Infant Nutrition Council (INC) which is the body for the major manufacturers and ingredient suppliers of infant formula and toddler milk and responses are currently being heard.
One of the submissions in favour of the extension came from Nestlé Australia's senior corporate counsel Elizabeth Lloyd, who says the company takes compliance obligations seriously.
"We fully support the INC's application for re-authorisation of the MAIF Agreement and associated guidelines," Ms Lloyd said.
"We believe re-authorisation for a five-year term without conditions is appropriate."
But the Australian College of Midwives has joined AMA in calling for the code not to be renewed, calling the rules not fit for purpose.
The group's submission to the consultation says that the government should introduce compulsory legislation and penalties should be introduced for non-compliance.
Criticism of the extension has also come from the Australian Breastfeeding Association, the Public Health Association of Australia and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation.
