The values listed above for protein intake are the minimum requirements, below which one cannot sustain metabolic function to survive.  Of ocurse there are uncertainties around these numbers, but the uncertainty is likely to be 10% or so of these values,  Some normal helathy populations of children in Europe and North America routinely consume twice as much protein, either because their diet allows this or they have special physiologic requirements.  Consumption at 3 times these amounts is associated with no ill effects. Malnourished children need to maintain the functoinal body mass and rebuild tissue that has been lost, which is why the minimum recommendations are much higher than the 'maintenance values' listed above.  All of the evidence suggests that current dietary protein intakes amounts for wasted children are below what is optimal, and not 'too much'.

A few additional comments.

Protein requirements of children should cover maintenance requirement (ie, compensate obligatory loss) and also provide enough amino acid to promote growth.  These requirements for growth can be 5 to 10 times higher than for well nourished children in SAM children during catch-up growth. So, their protein requirements are much higher. This is explained in some details in the articles below:

Ashworth A, Millward DJ. Catch-up growth in children. Nutr Rev. 1986 May;44(5):157-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.1986.tb07613.x.

Dewey KG, Beaton G, Fjeld C, Lönnerdal B, Reeds P. Protein requirements of infants and children. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996 Feb;50 Suppl 1:S119-47;

I fully agre with Mark regarding protein intake of infants and children in Europe, much higher than the figure you quote without any visible adverse effect. And also, about emerging evidence suggesting the protein content of RUTF is below optimal.

Dear Mark Manary and André Briend

Thank you for sharing your perspective and insights on the topic.

Your input enriches the ongoing dialogue on optimizing child nutrition.

Regards, Fahd