I wondered this too after reading the original New Yorker article a few weeks back and was quite surprised.

However, the article also made me think that once a practice is adopted it’s hard for it to change even if the evidence support changing. (Which is how I expected it to be from the outside)

I figured there was some context that I was missing as to why some things are quicker to adopt and others less so. Maybe because adopting this change was seen to be “saving” lives by being more cautious about the how medicines and feeding interact - and reverting the change is “risky” in case there is truth to it.