European formulas: a mass uncontrolled trial?

[AwayInAMunker]

This from the most recent Baby Milk Action Update (No. 40, November 2007).

"Although the revised EU Directive in many ways improves the essential composition of formulas - a reason why so many Member States were keen to adopt it - it also allows other companies to add "other food ingredients, as the case may be." There is no requirement that the ingredients are evaluated by an independent scientific body prior to introduction onto the market - even though the majority of EU member States and the EU's advisory body, the Scientific Committee for Food, called for this safeguard. If manufacturers introduce a new infant formula they only have to submit a label to the authorities - and that is all. There is no notification procedure at all for follow-on milks. To make matters worse, follow-on milks may be able to carry claims which are supported only by research on adults.

Breastmilk substitutes can be the sole source of nutrition during a critical period of rapid growth and development. Minor modifications can have major effects on infant health. The Report of the Scientific Committee on Food, 2003, identifies problems that have occurred with the introduction of modified infant formulae. Examples include reduced protein availability with impairment of growth; trace element deficiency with severe clinical disease; chloride deficiency with long-term neurological damage and thiamine deficiency with severe clinical disease, including neurological damage and several cases of infant death.

The fact that the EU Directive failure to include a rigorous pre-market authorisation plays into the hands of the companies who are prepared to add any ingredient - before its safety has been properly evaluated - simply to gain competitive advantage. This is equivalent to a mass uncontrolled trial."

Nobody else think this is interesting/outrageous?

I think it's interesting and outrageous.
I thought the same when I read about childbirth in hospital.
We're one fucked-up culture.

Makes me sooo glad I never had to use formula.
Hopefully I never will

The most rapid period of growth and development is between birth and two - why isn't more attention paid to what is being put into formula?

Just goes to show how much it is about money for these manufacturers, despite them being all "love the milk you give" about it. I can't believe it's appropriate for the sole food for a baby to be a matter of competitive advantage and profit.

So they're adding other "food" stuffs to milk (including "follow-on") - ok I can see a huge problem in adding other "food" stuffs to milk for babies under 6 months - but surely by the time babies are being given "follow-on" milk - they're already eating food stuffs????

AB - what about women who have to - shouldn't they be able to choose the best formula there is? If an ingredient is proven to be beneficial for whatever reason, shouldn't it be in all formula, whoever manufacturers it?

Some interesting stuff in Update about the formula company Carelines too - I'll post it later. Suffice to say they are know-nothing fuckwits on the end of those lines.

It's more that there's no need for them to research the effects of the ingredients, QoQ - or they can rely on research from adults - which is dim and potentially dangerous.

I read "other food ingredients" as proteins, enzymes - all that gubbins they can synthesise in labs and then put in formula and call "immunofortis". Tiktok's posted in the past about the softer stools produced by babies drinking some formula - saying that just because they are softer stools and might look closer to a breastfed baby's, there's no way of telling whether it's because the milk's not being digested properly - I'm sure she'll post about it again on here so I won't say any more because I can't remember the detail. Suffice to say that effect doesn't equal cause.

I think the main issue is that manufacturers introduce new ingredients purely for competition reasons, and health effects are way down the list.

It is very difficult to get a consumer response to this, because after all, use of formula is widespread, and the manufacturers nurture a 'criticism of formula makes women feel guilty' attitude (this is the whole thrust of their PR campaign 'INFORM'). It's true that women who use formula do sometimes feel guilty and they don't like to read about the risks of the product....obviously the most worthwhile response to this would be to work to minimise the risk rather than close ears and go 'lalalalalalala can't hear you'' (as well as improving support and information about breastfeeding).

Tiktok, I was speaking to a BFN bfc the other day and she said part of their training included a look at how formula companies market their product. Scary stuff. She's going to try to get me some of the material.

As a "failed breastfeeder" I am perfectly happy to be suspicious of the big formula manufacturers. I agree it's scandalous that the formula manufactuers aren't more strictiy regulated, and I'm shocked by what Hunker has posted.

Thanks, TC.

I knew not many people would read this on the BMA site (well, it's not actually on there yet - the April issue is still up as the latest one) - so I thought I'd give it a wider audience, because it's important, dammit!

Yes I was a formula feeder too (for the record, before this kicks off).

When I was thinking about giving up breast feeding I looked at the list of ingredients in most brands of formula it was the rubbish that was on this list that helped me to keep on breast feeding.

I know some women don't have the choice and I'm so gratefull that I didn't have to enter that minefield. It seems riddiculous that they don't have to properly test these products and I can't understand how anyone thinks that research done on adults can have any relevance on infants

I hope it doesn't, Pruni

But I suspect it might.

I wonder if there's a more rigorous process for getting a face cream to market than a new ingredient in an infant formula? I bet there is.

The 'other foodstuffs' in follow on would include iron - and there is a lot of anecdotal stuff that the extra iron in follow on formula causes constipation. Babies of six months do not need huge amounts of iron - a baby introduced to a widening range of solid foods in the second half of his first year will be able to 'choose' the iron he needs, but if he is getting loads of it in his bottle he can't.

The 'softer stools' concern, Hunker, comes from American and Australian commentators working in the field. You'll recall that Australia and New Zealand have not yet approved formula with novel ingredients because the authorities there do not feel they have proven their safety. In the US, the approval for novel ingredients came rather later than in Europe and they are still not in all formulas (if I recall correctly). Stools that 'look like a breastfed baby's stools' is not something that is good in itself - just looking like them means very little. There is concern that softer stools might mean the formula is digested in a way which reduces the nutritional impact of some of the other ingredients. for instance.

Pruni, are you a member of Baby Milk Action? That's something you could ask for for Christmas

I don't know the ins and outs of the science, but IIRC the iron in formula isn't in a form readily available to the baby in any case ?bio-availability is that the term???

Yes, Chaos. In breastmilk, a substance called lactoferrin enables the iron to be used. This is not present in formula milk or of course follow on.

.

There must be more MNers who are interested in this!

It would make sense that added iron would constipate a baby/toddler. It certainly does that to adults. But, pure and simply - the fact that no-one knows for sure is the problem.

It's really quite frightening that formula is so unregulated considering it is, for many babies, their only source of nutrition for up to 6 months. Why so few people seem to care about this I dont know.

If, for instance, someone was in hospital, and they were unable to eat in the normal fashion, and they had to be tube fed - is their medical nutrition formula regulated in the same manner as infant formula?

i found this whilst trying to answer my own question

omg, good post, and good point.

when dd was small I gave her some formula (both dss were exclusively breastfed for 6 months - I had learned by then). I did notice that many of the "probiotic" formulas gave her diarrhea and did wonder at the time how come it could be marketed as a healthy thing. But I did assume there would be some independent testing.

I am still haunted actually by a stroy my aunt told me, about my cousin coming very close to death as a baby in the 60s, and about several babies dying of similar symptoms in the region. she discovered many years later that it was a batch of contaminated baby milk, and that the story had been covered up. perhaps we haven´t come that far since then.

I knew I should've given it a catchier title...

I wish you could see how many people have read a thread sometimes And how many people have hidden it!

SP, those poor families

VVV, quite, if you were feeding adults one substance for a prolonged period of time, there would need to be more research into the effects of the ingredients.

I read it

got my update from cow and gate today, dd is onto the follow on milk marketing age, didn't read one mention of bf anywhere but lots about follow on milk and how c and g have added lots of extra crap to their products that aren't in their competitors along with those really useful graphs that don't have any numbers on them. no mention of if those added ingredients can actually be absorbed or are of any use of course . . .