Fatty acid supplements in formula milk: not what they're hyped up to be, and possibly harmful

[welliemum]

A little bird told me about this report.

From that link, if you want to know more, you can download the executive summary as a pdf: the first 4 paragraphs give a good overview.

This gist of it is that formula companies are adding omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids to formula. These fatty acids are known to be important in brain development (and are found in breastmilk).

It all sounds great except:

• there are a number of reports of babies experiencing side effects from the supplements
• there's no convincing evidence that these supplements have any benefit for babies.

What is especially worrying is that the manufacturers seem to be aware of this, yet aren't doing anything about it. Here's a quotation from the executive summary of the report I linked to:

-----
Substantiating this thesis is a Martek investment promotion from 1996, which reads as follows:
'Even if [the DHA/ARA blend] has no benefit, we think it would be widely incorporated into formulas, as a marketing tool and to allow companies to promote their formula as "closest to human milk."'
-------

is this the same stuff that is banned in New Zealand (and US?)?

No, it's used in many formulas in many countries.

I believe it's in SMA Gold for example - anyone got a tin and can check?

I wanted to say also, that side effects as such aren't the end of the world because there is no medication on earth that doesn't have some side effects.

But it has to balance out with the benefits. For example, chemotherapy drugs have nasty side effects, but the drugs are useful because the diseases they treat are nastier still.

What seems to be happening with these supplements is that they were introduced without proper (ie BIG) studies of the side effects and without clear evidence that they do what they're meant to do.

So you have all the worry of babies experiencing side effects - and as far as anyone knows it's all for nothing because the supplements don't work anyway.

I beg to differ here.
in the 1960's salt was added to formula , a practice that was stopped when a rise in kidney problems in infants was discovered.
That could be classed as a side effect.

There have been studies on omega 3 fatty acids etc, but so far are inconclusive.

I am not happy with the idea of puttting products derived from fish in formula milk.
There have been so many changes re allergies in the last 20 yrs .

Peanut oil USED to be put in formula , and was removed , then soya.
Before the mad cow scare, beef oil was in formula.

I havent read the ingrediants on a tin for quite some years, but the adding of something to a infants food, without proper reason , is irisponsible.

welliemum, I think these are the additions that took some time to be approved in the US, and which are still waiting for appro in Aus and NZ, but I might have that last one mixed up with prebiotics - would need to check.

In any case, prebiotics are the same ... added to formula as a marketing exercise, not primarily for nutritional benefit.

There are checks - manufacturers have to show the additions do not affect infant growth, and the calorie and other values of the product have to stay within statutory parameters. So real babies are tested for some months. In the UK (and presumably elsewhere) there are regulations about 'novel' ingredients in infant formula, and they have to be presented as a proposed change to the relevant authorities before they can be added routinely.

I have wondered before who are the mothers that permit their babies to be given the experimental formula. It could be poor mothers who are tempted by the fact the formula is free, and that's sad.