[witch_power]

Enfamil Premium and Parent's Choice premium infant formulas had the highest sugar content, at 13.5 and 12.4 grams per serving. The amounts are high but experts say the type of sugar revealed is the best: lactose, the same type found in breast milk.

Three brands tested low for any sugar: Gerber Good Start, Similac Advance Complete and Enfamil Pro-Sobee.

Conversely, in two types of formula made by Similac, the test revealed other added sugars.

Similac Advance Organic Complete Nutrition contained one of the sweetest kind: sucrose -- measuring in at 3.5 grams of sugar per serving. Similac Soy Infant Formula with Iron contained four kinds of added sugar, including sucrose, for a total of 3.8 grams per serving, roughly the equivalent of one teaspoon of sugar every 5 ounces

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/health/target-5-sugar-baby-formula-139339308.html#ixzz1mZf7qRt5

[witch_power]

Enfamil Premium and Parent's Choice premium infant formulas had the highest sugar content, at 13.5 and 12.4 grams per serving. The amounts are high but experts say the type of sugar revealed is the best: lactose, the same type found in breast milk.

Three brands tested low for any sugar: Gerber Good Start, Similac Advance Complete and Enfamil Pro-Sobee.

Conversely, in two types of formula made by Similac, the test revealed other added sugars.

Similac Advance Organic Complete Nutrition contained one of the sweetest kind: sucrose -- measuring in at 3.5 grams of sugar per serving. Similac Soy Infant Formula with Iron contained four kinds of added sugar, including sucrose, for a total of 3.8 grams per serving, roughly the equivalent of one teaspoon of sugar every 5 ounces

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/health/target-5-sugar-baby-formula-139339308.html#ixzz1mZf7qRt5

[jessica765]

This seems pretty meaningless too me without a comparison to the amount of sugar in breast milk.  Formula SHOULD have a lot of sugar--the same amount as in breastmilk.  That amount should be regulated, not labelled--we should not have parents in the formula aisle looking for the formula with the lowest sugar content because they think lower sugar = healthier.

[nisupulla]

It is difficult to compare the sugar in formula with the sugar in breastmilk, because it is so different. Breastmilk is very sweet, but it is comprised of lactose and other complex sugars. Formula is not required to contain lactose or more complex sugars (oligosaccarides). Sucrose (table sugar) and fructose, if I remember correctly, are "sweeter" than lactose, so formula manufacturers can add "less" sugar than breastmilk has. Superficially, that might seem "healthier". But, as they say, it's not nice to fool Mother Nature.

How does one surmise how much sucrose or fructose or any other sugar is equivalent to the amount of lactose and oligosaccarides that breastmilk contains?

Are high levels of sucrose, maltose,  or fructose or high frucose corn syrup biologically similar to lactose? Doubtful. Does it matter? Most definitely.

Let's not forget that "commercial infant formulas" are regulated to the degree that they must contain arbitrary but defined amounts of various compounds. They are not required to be "like breastmilk". In fact, if you ask any formula scientist, it is impossible for formula to ever be "like breastmilk".

Formula tries to match carbohydrates, proteins, and fats in terms of numbers. But it makes little attempt to match types of sugar, types of proteins, or types of fats - that goes beyond the science of the day when formula became prevalent.

So, yeah, in a sense, I agree. It is meaningless to compare the sugar in breastmilk to the sugar in formula. Formula is not enough like breastmilk to make a meaningful comparison.

[jessica765]

---

nisupulla wrote:

It is difficult to compare the sugar in formula with the sugar in breastmilk, because it is so different. Breastmilk is very sweet, but it is comprised of lactose and other complex sugars. Formula is not required to contain lactose or more complex sugars (oligosaccarides). Sucrose (table sugar) and fructose, if I remember correctly, are "sweeter" than lactose, so formula manufacturers can add "less" sugar than breastmilk has. Superficially, that might seem "healthier". But, as they say, it's not nice to fool Mother Nature.

I don't get what's so difficult about it.  Sugars are not really that complex (unlike, say, antibodies or cells).  Lactose is lactose, whether it's in formula or breast milk. Formula manufacturers can put lactose in formula, and some manufacturers do.  They can measure how much is in there, and see if it's the same amount as in breast milk.

Are high levels of sucrose, maltose,  or fructose or high frucose corn syrup biologically similar to lactose? Doubtful. Does it matter? Most definitely.

If the type of sugar definitely matters, should people try to buy formulas that use lactose as a sugar source rather than these others?

Let's not forget that "commercial infant formulas" are regulated to the degree that they must contain arbitrary but defined amounts of various compounds. They are not required to be "like breastmilk". In fact, if you ask any formula scientist, it is impossible for formula to ever be "like breastmilk".

It is impossible for formula to ever be "identical to breastmilk."  "Like breastmilk," however, is not an all-or-nothing thing; it's a matter of degree.  Cow's milk is more like breast milk than water is.  Formula is more like breast milk than cow's milk is.  Formula with lactose is more like breast milk than formula with sucrose is.

Formula tries to match carbohydrates, proteins, and fats in terms of numbers. But it makes little attempt to match types of sugar, types of proteins, or types of fats - that goes beyond the science of the day when formula became prevalent.

When it does make such an attempt (for example, when a manufacturer uses lactose rather than sucrose), is that something consumers should value?

I think you've used the analogy of improvements in formula being "one step closer to the moon" (I apologize if I'm wrong).  But I don't think it's a good analogy.  Being one step closer to the moon gets you nothing.  Having one property of breastmilk out of 1000 (or a million) may get you some biological function that's important.

Breast milk is not a potion whose magical properties are all activated when every component is in place.  It's a substance made up of numerous components, most of which probably have some purpose and function.  The fact that you can't add anywhere near all of them is no reason not to attempt to add as many as you can, in an attempt to duplicate as many of the properties of breast milk as you can.

---

[nisupulla]

>>Formula is more like breast milk than cow's milk is. <<

Right. Similarly, in terms of degree, formula is more like evaporated milk + Karo + vitamins than it is to breastmilk. IOW, it is not much like breastmilk at all.