[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

[nisupulla]

>>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,>>

I don't think anyone disagrees that formula manufacturers should continue to try to make a better breastmilk substitute.

The issue, as I see it, is formula close enough to breastmilk that the decision not to breastfeed can be taken lightly. The IFC would say, yes, do not sweat it, formula is close enough, it is fine. I think that is deceitful, profit-minded rhetoric.

The decision whether or not to breastfeed -- matters,

[nisupulla]

http://journeytocrunchville.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/breastmilk-can-not-be-imitated-the-dhaara-fallo...

>>Despite how hard the Formula Companies would try and have you believe that formula is equivalent to breastmilk it is most definitely not. Their often touted slogan “closest to breastmilk” is a ridiculous statement. Not only because formula is nothing close to breastmilk but because that statement can only be made because there is little alternative out there not because it is actually close to breastmilk, it is only closest. I tried to think of a similar and clever “closest to” statement but I couldn’t come up with anything. Maybe you can think of something clever.

Now before I go further with this I need to state that there is a time and place for formula. It is a necessary product that has saved many infants lives and no mother that finds the need to use formula should be made to feel guilty about that. My intent with this post and the research that I put forward is not to belittle those mothers that currently or have in the past fed their children formula. My problem with formula is not its existence but the companies that produce it and the way they market it and cleverly undermine many would-be breastfeeding mothers from taking their natural course in nature’s intended food for baby. I also don’t appreciate how that in the end it is the bottom line and not for the well being of the child that things do or don’t get added to formula. I don’t doubt that there are women and children out there that *need* to formula feed. They exist and formula should be there for them. However, in-arguably, formula is not close to breastmilk and hard as they may try it probably never will be. We can sugar coat it all we want (and the formula companies spend a majority of their money doing this) but breastmilk can not be imitated.<<

[nisupulla]

>>I don't get what's so difficult about it.  Sugars are not really that complex (unlike, say, antibodies or cells).<<

I disagree.

http://www.ifm.net/industry/prebiotics.htm

<<the compounds most commonly studied for their proposed prebiotic nature are non-digestible carbohydrates. In particular, oligosaccharides, molecules containing a small number (three to about ten) of monosaccharide residues connected by glycosidic linkages, are considered the main units among prebiotics, which include fructooligosaccharides (FOS), inulin, lactulose and galactooligosaccharides (GOS). Other compounds with potential for development, but not as yet well known, are xylooligosaccharides, acidic oligosaccharides, soyoligosaccharides, pecticoligosaccharides, glucooligosaccharides, and isomaltooligosaccharides. All of these molecules seem to play a role in the accretion of intestinal flora, while improving health status and reducing risk for diseases. Recently Roberfroid has critically re-evaluated all mentioned oligosaccharides, coming to the conclusion that only two substances can be considered to be prebiotics: fructo-oligosaccharides from the inulin type and galacto-oligosaccharides. For all the other the data set available is insufficient.>>

[teresagem]

---

nisupulla wrote:

>>I don't get what's so difficult about it.  Sugars are not really that complex (unlike, say, antibodies or cells).<<

I disagree.

http://www.ifm.net/industry/prebiotics.htm

<<the compounds most commonly studied for their proposed prebiotic nature are non-digestible carbohydrates. In particular, oligosaccharides, molecules containing a small number (three to about ten) of monosaccharide residues connected by glycosidic linkages, are considered the main units among prebiotics, which include fructooligosaccharides (FOS), inulin, lactulose and galactooligosaccharides (GOS). Other compounds with potential for development, but not as yet well known, are xylooligosaccharides, acidic oligosaccharides, soyoligosaccharides, pecticoligosaccharides, glucooligosaccharides, and isomaltooligosaccharides. All of these molecules seem to play a role in the accretion of intestinal flora, while improving health status and reducing risk for diseases. Recently Roberfroid has critically re-evaluated all mentioned oligosaccharides, coming to the conclusion that only two substances can be considered to be prebiotics: fructo-oligosaccharides from the inulin type and galacto-oligosaccharides. For all the other the data set available is insufficient.>>

---

I was already going to make a comment on this comment about sugars. You have beaten me to it to some extent.

When we say how important it is for oligosaccharides to act as prebiotics, and assist in the development of intestinal flora, it is known that the intestinal flora of BF babies is very different and of much healthier types than in FF babies. Introducing even small amounts of formula will make the intestinal flora more like a FF baby, and it can take a time to reverse the effect of even a bottle.

Intestinal health lays the foundation for good health in the rest of the body, by allowing the intestines to reject other harmful bcteria, by allowing digestion to be assisted, which enables digested nurtients to be well-absorbed and so on. It has very real repurcussions.

In their most vulnerable period, it is very important and needs to be seen as that. Even once solids are introduced and the flora does change again, the benefits can still continue. Think about how if you take antibiotics for a while, it can actually disrupt your normal gut flora, and cause other problems. Then you may find yourself taking pro-biotics to counteract that.

Oligosaccharides could be described as moderately complex sugars with an important and irreplaceable role to play.

Even with the simpler sugars, the behaviour in our body can still be different, in terms of insulun response, and possibly even the laying down of fat cells. The evidence shows that diabetes type 1 is more common in children who were FF as babies. This is a serious life-long disease, with many possible serious consequences, that could even lead to blindness, amputation and so on if not well controlled. Even when well-controlled, sometimes people can still have short term events like hypoglycemia that can lead to collapse. For a young child or even a teen to have to deal with this illness is complex. That is not to say that some BF children do not get this disease, but FF children develop it more often.

So I would not dismiss simple sugars as not being that important in the differences between each one.

Teresa

[charleen2008]

---

jessica765 wrote:

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.

Sorry but I don't agree that having any simularity to BM makes formula "like breastmilk".  The word like implies a very close or identical simularity not just some degree of simularity. The fact that breastmilk has hundreds ingredients not in formula as well as formula's lack of antibodies unlike BM both provide support the claim that formula is not "like breastmilk". While the term term does not mean it has to be 100% indeitical, it does imply a very close simularity that formula does not match as of yet. The issue is not that formula has to be identical to BM, though no one would argue that be a bad thing if possible (I doubt it will ever possible within the next few generations). The issue is that formula  should at least fairly close to BM before people start refering to it as "like breastmilk" or "close enough to breastmilk" or something simular. The formula companies want to get people to believe it's like or at least close enough to breastmilk without directly saying that. Many FF'ing moms want to believe that becuase they don't want to feel guilty for feeding formula to their baby, especially those who are feeding it purely by choice rather then any medical or other real need. For moms who wish to choose F'F'ing purely out of their own preference, it helps if they can fool themselves and others into believing formula is at least close to breastmilk and allows them to significantly discount the risks of formula without having to deny that breastmilk is healthier. They can claim that yes, technically formula is breastmilk is somewhat better but just not so significantly that for most babies it will have any significant short or longterm negative health reffects. The BF'ing becomes sort of like a form of extra credit in their minds. The reality is that their is no evidence to support this view and just examining the long list of ingredients and antibodies  that are missing from formula should signal to anyone that even without such studies, fornula is unlikely to be "like BM" or even "close-enough". Unless someone presents concrete evidence to support any claim that formula is "like or close-enough" to BM then we can't just assume it is, as we once did and some still do. Now that we have six decades of research that shows significant health-risks form FF'ing and that only supports what I feel we can safely conclude that it's not as risk-free as we once assumed.