key: cord-0028845-zzve43qz
authors: Klotz, Daniel; Wesołowska, Aleksandra; Bertino, Enrico; Moro, Guido E.; Picaud, Jean‐Charles; Gayà, Antoni; Weaver, Gillian
title: The legislative framework of donor human milk and human milk banking in Europe
date: 2021-12-22
journal: Matern Child Nutr
DOI: 10.1111/mcn.13310
sha: f2d3c11344bda465190b816a959cb2da73e0a5bf
doc_id: 28845
cord_uid: zzve43qz

Data about the regulatory approaches to donor human milk (DHM) in European countries are lacking. The aim of this study is to describe the various regulations of DHM within European countries, to assess its legislative context and its impact in relation to donor milk banking. We performed a cross‐sectional survey using a semistructured online questionnaire addressing 29 national European milk‐banking representatives from June 2020 to February 2021. Representatives of 26 national DHM services participated in this study. The legal classification and regulatory status of DHM were defined in 9 out of 26 areas of jurisdiction (35%) as either food product (n = 6), product of human origin according to a blood, tissue, cell regulation (n = 2), or medicinal product (n = 1). In the remainder, DHM remains unclassified. Most legislations did not provide a comprehensive framework concerning DHM and costs to cover milk bank operations were rarely reimbursed. In general, the lack of national legislative governance and the actual legislative regulations in place do not support the use of DHM in European countries. National medical guidelines for the use of DHM have been issued in only 11 countries. The current number and distribution of milk banks (n = 239) within participating countries may not provide an equitable access to DHM for eligible infants. These findings could guide stakeholders aiming to establish a regulatory framework for DHM.

Within each European country, we identified national experts involved in policy making for human milk banking among the members of the European Milk Bank Association from personal knowledge or from internet research. Within each individual European country, one national expert received a structured online questionnaire (Supporting Information Material 1) containing up to 22 questions that was pretested for usability and technical functionality amongst the authors. Invited national experts were asked to review the existence and the impact of their respective national legislative regulation concerning donor human milk and human milk banking. Upon receiving the completed questionnaire, the main author performed video interviews with each participant or contacted them by E-mail to clarify any uncertainties and to discuss the actual and potential implications of the respective legal framework concerning DHM as perceived by the respective national representative. Data were collected from June 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 after the survey was approved by the EMBA board and after ethical approval was waived by the Ethics Commission of the Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Germany.

The participants were informed about the purpose of this study, the intention of the investigators and provided informed consent to the publication of the collected data by providing a completed questionnaire. They did not receive any incentive for participation.

We performed a descriptive analysis; data are presented in totals and proportions. This survey was prepared and results reported according to the Equator CHERRIES checklist for reporting results of internet e-surveys (Eysenbach, 2004) .

Donor human milk services provided by human milk banks (n = 239) were identified in 29 European countries ( Figure 1 ). Participants from 26 of those participated in this study by returning a completed questionnaire and providing further clarification by a follow up interview or e-mail. All respondents were actively involved in policy making capacity in their current national milk banking operations and represented their respective national human milk bank organisation where present (n = 16).

We could not establish contact with national human milk banking representatives from Hungary, Portugal, and Romania, even though DHM services were operating within these countries (personal communication). Therefore, we did not collect any data from these countries. Supporting Information Material 2 lists countries where we could rule out national DHM services (n = 5), countries where we could not obtain any data (n = 7) and those countries that were not addressed by this survey due to different reasons (population size and/or demographics, geographic location). However, it was beyond the scope of this study to ascertain the presence of donor human milk use within individual European neonatal units outside of established donor human milk services.

The scope and the framework of donor human milk services are given in Table 1 . HMB were almost exclusively operated by neonatal care units, by tissue and blood banks, by hospital pharmacies or acted independently as autonomous, independent entities.

• There is a lack of a legislative framework concerning the use of donor human milk in the majority of European countries.

• Available national legislative frameworks differed widely with gaps in the regulation of safety and quality of donor human milk, protection of donors and recipients, and cost recovery.

• Despite clearly demonstrated benefits and unequivocal recommendations for the use of donor human milk there is a lack of national guidance in many European countries.

DHM was legally regulated in 9 out of 26 European countries and was classified as either food product (n = 6), as product of human origin (n = 2) or medicinal product (n = 1) ( Table 1 ). In most countries those legislations were issued by the respective national ministries of health apart from Germany where different ministries on a federal level issued separate and divergent legislations, thus resulting in federal states with and without legislative frameworks for DHM.

The defining framework of the respective national regulation was derived from different regulations covering food law, infectious diseases and hygienic regulations or regulations also covering blood, tissue, and cells (BTC) of human origin among other statutory requirements ( Table 2 ). The strength of adherence to this legislation and the subsequent regulation of DHM differed between those countries. The items that were covered by these legislations are given in Table 2 , revealing gaps in many aspects of DHM management in most regulations.

The actual impact of the current regulations on the use of DHM in the respective countries is given in Table 3 . In general, the current status quo did not appear to have an impact on the overall use of DHM as experienced by the participants (10/25) but the current legislative framework, or rather the lack thereof, was not supportive of the utilisation of DHM for the majority (16/25).

Participants cited different preferences for DHM classification.

Most considered a classification sui generis, that is, within a unique category (n = 15), a classification according to BTC (n = 9), or as a food product (n = 1) as the most suitable category for DHM in their respective country. Interestingly, five out of nine participants with a regulation in place also would like to change their DHM classification.

In general, expectations associated with a preferred legislation did not differ much between participants, according to BTC or according to a DHM classification sui generis. The majority of the participants that favoured a DHM classification sui generis (73%) and the majority of the participants that favoured a DHM regulation according to BTC (53%) expected an increase in DHM utilisation within their preferred classification. Similar results were obtained for the participants' expectations from their preferred classification in increasing the number of HMB banks (sui generis 46% vs. BTC 45%), improvement in HMB organisation (80% vs. 78%) or hygienic quality of DHM (46% vs. 45%) and reimbursement of operational costs for procuring DHM (46% vs. 56%).

Data concerning funding of HMB operations were available for 10 national services. In those, funding of operations was mostly provided by the operating unit (i.e., the hospital budget of the respective Children's Hospital) or provided by the hospital operator or health care trust and was subsidised by charitable donations or the sale of milk to other hospitals in some cases. Only in three cases was the provision of DHM reimbursed by a third party (e.g., the Ministry National medical guidelines for the use of DHM are either available in 11, or being drafted in 7, out of 26 countries. National medical guidelines concerning use of MOM have been issued in six and being drafted in four more countries (Table 1) .

The term donor human milk points towards the challenges that surround its procurement and provision in the context of human milk banking. Milk is an easily perishable substance that can be spoiled during its handling and may serve as a vector of potential hazardous organic and inorganic substances to infants at risk (Blackshaw et al., 2020) . As a product of human origin, it raises analogies to the use of BTC as medical products but, in contrast to those, is intended to be ingested by another human being.

A donation implies a process that is propelled by an altruistic motive and based on an informed and autonomous decision of women and parents that should not be influenced by any profitable incentives (Miracle et al., 2011) .

These characteristics of donor human milk partially explain its limited availability that has, as an economic principle, contributed to the ongoing commodification and commercialisation of human milk (Newman & Nahman, 2020) .

The challenges detailed above have in part, led to the calls for a legislative framework for the use of DHM to avert any potential harm to donors and recipients alike (European Commission, 2019). In this study we aimed to describe the current fragmented legal regulations and framework surrounding the procurement and use of donated human milk within European countries.

Traditionally, the banking of mothers' own milk has been perceived as an extension of breast feeding one's own child in the neonatal intensive care units (NICU) mitigating the need for any regulatory oversight. However, the lack of clear regulatory guidance has been identified as a barrier to provide donor human milk to premature infants in need and to establish new milk banks (Klotz et al., 2020) . Abbreviations: DHM, donor human milk; DMB, donor milk bank; MOM, mother owns milk; n.a., data not available; VLBW, very low birth weight (infants).

a According to a legislation issued by an regulatory body. 

What is the resulting strength of adherence from this regulation?

Regulation is binding and following the regulation is mandatory

Regulation defines a set of rules which can be adjusted according to local conditions

The need to adhere to the regulation is unclear, regulation is not applied

Registration for handling of DHM

Staffing and qualification of personnel

Note: •, in place, regulated; ○, indirectly regulated, evident from context; ø, not regulated or not mentioned within legislation.

Abbreviation: DHM, donor human milk. a Considered and treated as food product but not included in the actual food legislation.

Within the nine countries that adopted a form of legislation, human milk is exclusively included within pre-existing classifications, that is, according to regulations that have been originally devised for food products, medications, and medical products of human origins.

However, none of these categories reflects the above-mentioned complex properties of DHM, limiting its applicability to DHM.

Furthermore, the assessment of the actual scope of the specific regulations reveals gaps that exist within each national regulation, limiting its impact and applicability.

In general, our data show that most participants of our study did not regard their current classification of DHM or the lack thereof as supportive of human milk banking in their country. Accordingly, most participants would prefer an alternative to the current classification for DHM within their country citing very different preferences.

Most participants preferred a classification other than according to products of human origin. Given the participants' preferences and the current status quo of DHM, legislation appears to be at odds with European plans of regulating DHM according to products of human origin (blood, tissues, and cells). However, we could show that expectations of health care professionals towards any DHM regulation was similar irrespective of the individually favoured DHM classification. Therefore, preferences may not only be shaped by expectations of regulatory outcomes but also by the anticipation of regulatory costs associated with a specific classification (e.g., for health authorities by providing governance and for health care facilities when preparing, obtaining or maintaining regulatory documentation and approvals). Such regulatory costs must be considered when devising a regulatory DHM framework and must not render milk bank operations unsustainable from a financial or operational point of view.

The specific benefits and disadvantages of classifying DHM according to one of the existing classifications have been discussed in detail elsewhere (PATH, 2019). Any legal classification may expedite DHM utilisation within a given health care system by providing a framework for procuring, handling, dispensing and reimbursing DHM.

However, certain aspects have to be considered in this context.

Due to the basic diversity of regulatory legislation between countries, classifying donor milk may not necessarily result in a consistent regulatory outcome as shown in Table 2 . For example, Denmark and Austria both classify DHM legally as a food product but, in each of these countries, their respective frameworks covered a very different range of issues and levels of guidance for regulators and health care professionals.

Heterogeneity in regulation on a legislative level, especially classification, may impede DHM delivery between different jurisdictions (international or subnational). This could limit the source of supply and subsequently the access to DHM for those units or countries that are currently not operating own donor milk services.

When revising or devising new legislative frameworks concerning, these aspects and the current national modus operandi must be considered as future legislative action should not detrimentally affect human milk banking and the use of donor milk in a given setting.

Recent data generated within different health care systems substantiate the expenses of procuring DHM (Daili et al., 2020; Fengler et al., 2020) . Those data show that costs for procuring DHM far exceed the costs of preterm formula. Our data revealed that a third party payer reimburses those costs for the procurement of DHM in only three out of 10 countries (France, Austria, and Poland). However, actual costs may only be partially refunded to the facility responsible for milk bank operations (Wesolowska et al., 2020 There are some limitations to our study. The DHM experts' assessment of the legal effects of any given regulation does not represent a judicial expert opinion of legal ramifications but represent a medical expert opinion reflecting on the impact of any given regulation on the everyday practice concerning human milk services. Legal classifications may be issued by different levels of the legislative process ranging from federal laws to regional by-laws. Oversight might be provided by different regulatory bodies within the same and within different European countries. We therefore did not attempt to ascertain the exact legal nature of the respective legislations but focussed on its main regulatory effects on handling donor human milk within a given area of jurisdiction.

We focused on the issue of DHM regulation from a pragmatic view as these regulations are impacting everyday operations of human milk banks and DHM services within health care settings and cannot substitute a comprehensive debate about the regulation of human milk in general as discussed in detail elsewhere (Cohen, 2019) .

In conclusion, DHM is rarely and heterogeneously regulated within European countries. Available regulations are insufficiently covering important DHM aspects. DHM services are unevenly spread within Europe limiting the access to DHM for vulnerable infants;

most countries are lacking a national human milk policy.

A harmonised regulation and classification as well as national guidelines implementing unequivocal recommendations into national policy may be beneficial for the further implementation of DHM services across Europe.

Donor human milk for preterm infants: Current evidence and research directions

Feeding interval and use of donor breast milk for very low birthweight infants: A nationwide survey in Japan

The risk of infectious pathogens in breast-feeding, donated human milk and breast milk substitutes

Should human milk be regulated? UC Irvine Law Review

Cost analysis of operating a human milk bank in China

Evaluation of the Union legislation on blood

Blood, tissues and cells for medical treatments & therapies-revised EU rules

European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & Health Care (EDQM)

Improving the quality of web surveys: The checklist for reporting results of internet e-surveys (CHERRIES)

Cost analysis showed that feeding preterm infants with donor human milk was significantly more expensive than mother's milk or formula

Donor human milk programs in German, Austrian and Swiss neonatal units-Findings from an international survey

Donor milk banking: Improving the future". A survey on the operation of the European donor human milk banks

Making human milk matter: The need for EU regulation

Contemporary ethical issues in human milk-banking in the United States

Nurture commodified? An investigation into commercial human milk supply chains

Promoting human milk and breastfeeding for the very low birth weight infant

Strengthening human milk banking: A resource toolkit for establishing & integrating human milk bank programs-A global implementation framework

Donor human milk and fortifier use in United States Level 2, 3, and 4 neonatal care hospitals

Nutritional practices in very low birth weight infants: A national survey

Maintaining human milk bank services throughout the COVID-19 pandemic: A global response

Implementation of the reimbursement cost of human-milk-based neonatal therapy in polish health care service: practical and ethical background

Donor human milk for low-birthweight infants

We are grateful for participating in this survey and for providing country specific data to Olaf Ahrens, Switzerland; Sertac Arslanoglu, 

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.

DK conceived the study. DK, AW, J-C P, GW designed the questionnaire. DK, AW, and GW performed the data collection and analysis. EB, GEM, and AG contributed to the questionnaire and data collection. DK wrote the first draft of the paper. All authors provided input to the overall direction and content of the paper, reviewed each draft of the paper, and reviewed and approved the final version.

The data reported on here are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions; participants did not consent to data sharing when they agreed to participate.

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2347-3866Aleksandra Wesołowska http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7270-5910