This would kill international travel no differently than a terrorist bombing. One can not be expected to fly 10+ hours without food no matter how prudent it would be to insure security. The automobile manufacturers have the technology to build a 99% safe car at all speeds and any situations. However each car would cost about 1/2 million dollars. The gov't could require it for safety but they wouldn't because it would kill the industry.
Yes, babies are so predictable in when they will be hungry and how much they will consume in one feeding. And of course, babies will be so understanding with weather and mechanical delays. I am not dogging you esopp1956. I am simply pointing out how difficult it will be to implement this kind of policy. Who would be deciding this? The surgean general? Will it be based on a baby's age or weight as to how much is "sufficient"?
Those with "might" will be able to get around the rules. (see my many posts on this subject regarding Hudson News and how much scrutiny is being imposed on their deliveries of toothpaste, etc.) We, the traveling public, have numbers but no organized "strength" to impose a better system than the one in place now. The one in place now is: "We will put the burden of security on the passenger rather than on the security screeners and the TSA. When in doubt, don't ask us (TSA) to work harder or better just tell the public to provide the path of least resistance."