A Poor Replacement for Mother’s Milk
ARTICLE SUMMARY
• Infant formula lacks many key substances for development and growth. If a key nutrient is missing or not available, the body cannot adequately accomplish the task.
• Infant formula is primarily composed of sugar or lactose, dried skim milk and refined vegetable oil which can include genetically modified components. Organic formula is made of basically the same ingredients but they are not genetically modified. Soy-based formula is made of soy protein, sugar and refined oils.
• Breast milk from a well-nourished mother is composed of hundreds of substances—over one hundred fats alone.
• Infant formula contains double the amount of protein that breast milk does, which promotes insulin resistance and adiposity.
• There have been over twenty infant formula recalls since 1980 involving ingredients, pollution with pathogens, adulteration with foreign substances like glass, lack of required nutrients, foul smells, etc.
• Rocket fuel, phthalates, melamine, and high levels of heavy metals have been found in infant formula.
• There is no FDA regulation of infant formula; proof of safety is left to the manufacturers.
• Additives to infant formula, such as iron, DHA, ARA and laboratory-made folic acid are all problematic.
• Heat damages the protein in formulas forming advanced glycation end products as well as compromising the nutritional value.
Modern-day infant formula is the ultimate refined
food, a product of science, composed of highly
processed ingredients such as sugar, nonfat dried
milk, vegetable oils and a list of synthetic nutrients. But it
is convenient: just open, mix with water, heat and serve.
And all can be done at home, much like preparing a can of
condensed soup. A dubious added bonus is that with the
“science” of infant formula there is no work or worry. You
don’t have to think about it. One size fits all.
Infant formulas may be convenient but they have a very dark side. Even
though some pediatricians think commercial formula is equivalent to breast
milk, they are sorely mistaken. A simple review of the medical literature
emphasizes the inadequacy of infant formula in infant nutrition. Formulas
are much higher in protein than breast milk, a fact which has been significantly
linked to childhood obesity. Formula is calorie-dense and increases
insulin levels.
Trends in the use of infant formula over the
last century have tracked an increase in allergic
reactions, diabetes type 1 and type 2, and other
chronic diseases among those children fed infant
formula.1 Commercial formulas contain GM (genetically
modified) ingredients and synthetically
derived nutrients; they lack vitally necessary cholesterol
but include mostly polyunsaturated fats
which could include trans fats, toxic by-products
as a result of heating and chemical additions, and
many other substances not found in breast milk.
“Formula-fed babies are sicker, sick more
often, and are more likely to die in infancy or
childhood. Studies for a white American population
show that bottle-fed infants were fourteen
times more likely to be hospitalized than
breast-fed infants. Compared to breastfed babies,
formula-fed babies have a doubled overall infant
death risk, and four-fold risk of Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome (SIDS).” Bottle-fed infants and
children have more frequent and more severe upper
respiratory infections, wheezing, pneumonia
and influenza. They have more diarrhea, more
gastrointestinal infections and constipation.2
Formula-fed babies suffer more jaw misalignment
and are more likely to need orthodontic
work as they get older. Speech problems are
more likely to develop because of weak facial
muscles and tongue thrust problems which
develop among bottle-fed babies. Formula-fed
babies tend to become mouth breathers who snore
and develop sleep apnea.2
Formula-fed infants also tend to have more
dental decay—so-called “baby bottle caries”
when habitually put to bed with a bottle—along
with periodontal disease and TMJ problems.3-4
Most infants in the U.S. today rely on infant
formula for some portion of their nutrition. An
estimated one million infants in the United States
are fed formula from birth every year.5 Today
infant formulas are made by drug companies
not mothers. Drug companies hold patents on
their products and fiercely protect many “trade
secrets.”
But unlike drugs, infant formulas are considered
by law to be food, and food is considered
inherently safe. There are few regulations governing
infant formulas and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the government organization
responsible for overseeing infant formulas,
has left the burden of proof of their safety up to
the manufacturers.5
The FDA does not approve infant formulas
before they can be marketed. Surprisingly no
government agency is charged with this responsibility.
However, all formulas marketed
in the United States must meet federal nutrient
requirements. Infant formula manufacturers are
required to register with the FDA and provide
the agency with a notification prior to marketing
a new formula or adding a new ingredient. But
these were not always the rules.5
EXPERIMENTATION ON HUMAN INFANTS
In her book, Breastfeeding: A Guide for the
Medical Profession, now in its seventh edition,
the prominent pediatrician Dr. Ruth Lawrence
called infant formula “one of the largest human
experiments in history.” Formulas were concocted,
ingredients came and went, and there were
no randomized clinical trials or experiments of
any kind before the formulas were tried on real
live babies. Not much has changed today. The
“scientific” formula label you see today is a result
of years of guesswork.6
Infant formula and breast milk are unique
in comparison to almost all other foods in that
they are often the sole source of nutrition in the
vulnerable and rapidly growing and developing
child. “Inadequate nutrition in infancy has the
potential to result in serious and irreversible
adverse effects.”7 In contrast to breast milk, formulas
do not change in composition in response
to the infant’s ever-changing needs.6
Food is a programming system: the new
science of epigenetics and nutrigenomics has
taught us that food contains information that
speaks to our genes, not just provides calories
for energy, and what we eat programs our body
with messages which ultimately lead to health or
disease. Leading neurologist Dr. David Perlmutter
and functional medicine specialist Dr. Mark
Hyman believe that “Every time you take a bite
of food you talk to your genes. The very food
you eat is changing your DNA right now.”8 If
this is so, what are the devitalized, spray-dried,
nonfat milk, GM sugar and glucose solids in baby
formula telling your baby’s genes every day?
In the 1800s breastfeeding of infants was
understood to be the “gold standard” of nutrition,
and a baby who was bottle-fed was regarded with
pity because of the high mortality rate associated
with this inferior method. But ideas were already
changing: by 1883 there were twenty-seven patented
brands of powdered infant formula which
were added to cow’s milk, including the first
marketed formula of the putative genius Justus
von Liebig in 1869. Henry Nestlé’s formula,
introduced in 1870, was made of “good Swiss
milk,” sugar, wheat flour, and malt. The use of
these formulas was associated with a high death
rate in the summer months when milk spoiled
easily. Public health movements providing better
care for cows improved the quality of milk,
while milk clinics for infants were set up. By
1912 many homes had an icebox.9
PROBLEMS
Many babies fed formula developed vitamin
deficiency diseases such as rickets and scurvy
before doctors and manufacturers figured out
that the baby’s diet should be supplemented with
orange juice and cod liver oil. Pundits of the day
believed that boiled or sterilized milk caused
scurvy and was to be avoided. But physicians
showed that boiling could reduce the clumping
of casein curds in the infant stomach, apparently
making cow’s milk more digestible, thus justifying
the practice. Cow’s milk for use in infant
formula was usually boiled in Europe.9
In the early 1920s cane sugar became
scarce and expensive. Dr. William M. Mariott
introduced Karo corn syrup, and it became the
carbohydrate of choice for over twenty years. The
Evaporated Milk Association funded Mariott’s
work and not surprisingly, in 1929 he published
the first study purporting to show the superiority
of that product to cow’s milk and even breast
milk. Other untrustworthy researchers followed
with the same fraudulent results.
In 1934 Carnation irradiated their milk,
using a process Henry Steenbock patented for
developing vitamin D in the product. Dried milk
was also deemed an excellent source of infant nutrition.
Mothers and Medicine: A Social History
of Infant Feeding, 1890-1950 by Rima D. Apple
provides a fascinating and well-documented account
of the shady history of the infant formula
industry.10
Although formulas containing powdered
milk have been around for almost a century,
they became widely used during World War II
and the post-war years. In the 1950s and 1960s,
infant formula feeding was considered the norm
and breastfeeding rates plummeted.
Infant formulas in the 1950s were fraught
with problems including an excessive quantity
of substances requiring excretion by the kidneys
and excessive sodium in the blood serum which
caused dehydration for some infants. Low iron
content and high intake of iron inhibitors caused
iron deficiency and increased intestinal blood
loss. Intake of fatty acids was low. The formulas lacked vitamin C so scurvy was a continuing
problem, even though leading pediatricians
advised the use of orange juice.11
The two types of concentrated commercially
prepared liquid formulas mostly in use during the
1960s were similar to evaporated milk formula
with added vitamins (Lactum, Mead Johnston)
and a product with a lower protein content with
added vegetable oils and vitamins (Similac and
SMA).12
By 1970, nearly all of the locally based
commercial formula services had ceased to exist.
Few hospitals prepared their own formulas
in-house as had formerly been the norm and most
newborn nurseries used commercially prepared,
ready-to-feed formulas.13
In the 1970s, a marked resurgence in breastfeeding
took place world-wide. The movement
toward increased breastfeeding seemed to arise
from the general public rather than from the
prompting of health professionals, and may have
been in part associated with negative publicity
directed against the formula industry. In addition
new scientific evidence illuminated the benefits
of breastfeeding and sparked campaigns to promote
the practice.14
Ironically, an increased use of powdered
formulas after 1971 coincided with the surge in
breastfeeding because pediatricians of the time
advocated introducing cow’s milk at a later age
and feeding formula instead to older babies. The
percentage of infants fed formulas after four
months of age continued to increase. About 20
percent of six-month-old infants were formulafed
in 1971 and 50 percent were formula-fed in
1980.10
Despite the persistent claim of formula
manufacturers that sound “science” was behind
the development of infant formula, the “science”
was in fact not well developed at all, and much
experimentation fell to trial and error. When babies
became ill, didn’t develop properly, or even
died from consuming a formula, the problem was
isolated and the “Band-Aid” applied: the missing
ingredient was added or the offending substance
was removed.10
NEW STANDARDS
Manufacturers often add new ingredients
to infant formulas in an attempt to mimic the
composition or performance of human milk.
However, the addition of these ingredients is not
without risks due to a range of complex issues,
such as bioavailability, the potential for toxicity,
and the practice of feeding formula and human
milk within the same feeding or on the same
day.15
Shockingly, a review of the information on
infant formula regulation and overview shows
the FDA dragging its feet for many years in
implementing recommendations of professional
task forces.18 Several meetings of the Food
Advisory Committee on Infant Formula took
place from 1996-2002, but the FDA took no action
on any recommendations until September
2014 when the agency published the final rule regarding standards for manufacturers of infant
formula. These set in place federally enforceable
requirements for the safety and quality of infant
formula. The requirements include current good
manufacturing practices specifically designed
for infant formula, including required testing
for the harmful pathogens Salmonella, Cronobacter,
and E. sakazakii. Further, manufacturers
must demonstrate that the infant formulas they
produce support normal physical growth, and
the formulas must be tested for nutrient content
in the final product stage, before entering the
market, and at the end of the products’ shelf life.
The new rules are rudimentary, however,
and in the end “toothless” as they do not apply to
formulas manufactured for infants with unusual
medical conditions, special dietary needs such
as galactosemia, and for babies who are born
prematurely. This oversight excludes many infant
formula products which will not fall under this
regulation, such as soy-based formulas.19
These new standards are based on the first
Infant Formula Law (1980), which was passed
after more than twenty to fifty thousand infants
were exposed to a chloride-deficient soy formula
and thirty children were diagnosed with hypochloremic
metabolic acidosis because of chloride
deficiency. These infants developed loss of appetite,
failure to gain weight, muscular weakness,
vomiting, severe metabolic alkalosis and slowed
growth in head circumference. Brain growth is
vulnerable to chloride deficiency. In a follow-up
of this group of infants four to nine years later,
distinct cognitive impairments had emerged including
“language disorder, problems with word
finding, visual disturbances, attention deficient
disorder with repetitive behaviors, and withdrawal
and over-focusing as seen in autism.”20
By law, the FDA requires that all formulas
contain the following nutritional constituents:
protein; fat; vitamins C, A, D, E, K, B1, B2, B3,
B6, and B12; niacin; folic acid; pantothenic acid;
calcium; phosphorous; magnesium; iron; zinc;
manganese; copper; iodine; sodium; potassium;
and chloride.21 Selenium, a trace mineral essential
for brain growth and thyroid health, was
belatedly added to this list in 2015.22
THE BASE FOR INFANT FORMULA
Most formulas use cow’s milk as their base
ingredient, but some adjustments must be made
to bring the composition closer to that of breast
milk. Human breast milk is 3.8 percent fat, 1.0
percent protein, and 7.0 percent lactose, while
cow’s milk is 3.7 percent fat, 3.4 percent protein
and 4.8 percent lactose.
Cow’s milk also has higher levels of phosphorus
and calcium and lower levels of iron, zinc,
niacin, and ascorbic acid than human milk.23
Formulas based on goat milk (Kabrita) and other
animal milks are also commercially available, as
well as a vegan formula (Coopers), along with
soy milk formulas, and others.24
INFANT FORMULA INGREDIENTS
All infant formulas, both organic and conventional,
contain basically the same highly
processed ingredients such as sugars, vegetable
fats, processed proteins, synthetic vitamins,
minerals, nucleotides, and DHA and ARA (see
Table 1). The main ingredients include:
1. Carbohydrate, in the form of lactose, corn
maltodextrin, maltodextrin(-ose), sugar;2. Protein as non-fat milk, casein hydolysate,
whey protein concentrate, soy protein isolate;
3. Fat as soy oil, coconut oil, palm olein, high
oleic safflower oil, high oleic sunflower oil,
“other medium-chain fatty acids”;
4. Synthetic arachadonic acid (ARA) and docsahexanoic
acid (DHA);
5. Synthetic vitamins A, E, D, K, B1-B3, B5, B6,
C, folic acid, biotin, choline; the carotenoids
lycopene, lutein;
6. Minerals in inorganic form: potassium,
calcium, iron, magnesium, chloride, zinc,
copper, manganese, selenium;
7. Synthetic preservatives: beta carotene and
ascorbyl palmitate to prevent rancidity in
the DHA and ARA oils;
8. Synthetic amino acids: taurine, L-carnitine
and L-methionine (in soy formula);
9. Nucleotides: cytidine 5’-monophosphate,
disodium guanosine 5’-monophosphate,
disodium uridine 5’-monophosphate, adenosine
5’-monophosphate;
10. Probiotic or prebiotic substances as oligosaccharides,
fructooligosaccharides (fos),
polydextrose.
Other common additions are carrageenan
and salt.27
The synthetic ingredients in infant formula
are produced with toxic chemicals. Lutein is
a hexane extract from marigolds; lycopene is
produced with toxic toluene; taurine is processed
with sulfuric acid and aziridine; L-carnitine
and L-methionine are discussed in depth below;
nucelotides are derived from chemically
treated yeast; the fatty acids ARA and DHA are
present in the synthetic forms of ARASCO and
DHASCO, to be discussed below.28
AMINO ACIDS AND NUCLEOTIDES
Taurine is an amino acid that is plentiful in
breast milk in a free form for easy absorption.
It plays an important role in the development
of the central nervous system and is credited
with growth of the brain, as it is necessary for
myelination. It also protects cells in the brain
and eye against toxins or oxidants. The human
infant, unlike adults, cannot synthesize taurine
from cysteine and methionine precursors. Even
adults rely somewhat on dietary sources of taurine.
Low in cow’s milk, taurine was added to
infant formula in 1984. But the taurine in infant
formula is produced synthetically; one processing
method includes the use of sulfuric acid, a
toxic and carcinogenic substance, and another
technique involves aziridine, listed as a hazardous
air pollutant by the Environmental Protection
Agency.29
L-carnitine production involves epichlorhydrin,
listed as a 2-B material (possible human
carcinogen) by the International Agency
for Research on Cancer. For this reason it was
rejected for use in organic foods by the National
Organic Standards Board. The bioavailability of
oral carnitine supplements is only about 14–18
percent of the administered dose. In contrast,
the bioavailability of L-carnitine from food in
omnivores is about 54–72 percent.30
FDA regulations on the nutrient requirements
of infant formula (21 CFR 107.100(a)) do
not require the addition of L-carnitine.31
L-methionine is required in soy-based infant
formula to meet basic amino acid requirements.
Given its incompatibility with organic principles,
synthetic L-methionine is prohibited in European organic foods. For that reason, organic soy-based
infant formula does not exist in Europe. The
synthetic version of L-methionine used in infant
formula is produced with materials including
acrolein, an EPA hazardous air pollutant, and
hydrogen cyanide, described by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention as a “systemic
chemical asphyxiant” and “chemical warfare
agent. . . used commercially for fumigation,
electroplating, mining, chemical synthesis, and
the production of synthetic fibers, plastics, dyes,
and pesticides.”32
Nucleotides, the building blocks of nucleic
acids like DNA and RNA, are produced from
hydrolyzed yeast. The yeast undergoes multiple
chemical changes in order to allow extraction
of nucleotides, including heating to denature
proteins, cell wall proteolysis, enzymatic hydrolysis,
and dehydration. A Chinese biotech
company (Dalian Zhen-Ao Bio-Tech) and a Japanese
company supply most of the infant formula
nucleotides.33
FATTY ACIDS: DHA AND ARA
Martek Bioscience Corporation, a Dutch
conglomerate, makes the fatty acids DHA and
ARA from a strain of genetically modified
algae through induced mutations with the use
of radiation and harsh chemicals. The algae are
fermented in tanks containing corn syrup, ethanol
and other ingredients and then immersed in
a bath of hexane, a petrochemical solvent which
is a known neurotoxin according to the CDC. If
used in infant formulas it is micro-encapsulated,
which is also prohibited in organic standards.
It is also preserved with synthetic ingredients
prohibited in organic standards like mannitol,
modified starch, glucose syrup solids, ascorbyl
palmitate, and beta carotene. DHASCO, the
artifically produced DHA, is used extensively
in omega-3 supplements and foods. The natural
source of DHA is fish or fish liver oil.34
PROTEIN IN INFANT FORMULA
The present protein concentrations in infant
formula are twice as high as that in human milk.
Too much protein results in the formation of
high blood urea and ammonia, which must be
eliminated in the urine, and a higher mineral
and ash content than the infant requires. Thus
the formula-fed infant has a two-thirds higher
renal solute load and higher urine specific gravity
than the breastfed counterpart. The kidneys of
formula-fed infants are taxed working overtime
to eliminate the solutes.35
Formula feeding of human and rhesus monkey
infants accelerates weight gain in early infancy
and results in increased serum concentrations
of branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs).
Milk-derived BCAAs stimulate the secretion of
insulin and IGF-1 growth factor. The European
Childhood Obesity Trial Study Group confirmed
that early high-protein feeding predicts obesity.
Fat mass is higher in formula-fed infants than in
children breastfed at twelve months.35
Whey alpha-lactalbumin is the major protein
in breast milk, which is important in lactose
formation, and is rich in tryptophan (TRP), the
essential amino acid that serves as a precursor for
the neurotransmitters serotonin and melatonin.
These regulate many neurobehavioral effects
such as appetite, satiation, mood, pain perception,
and the sleep-wake cycle. Breast milk contains
no beta-lactoglobulin, the dominant whey
protein in cow’s milk and thus in formula.36
The infant’s daily need for TRP is relatively
high compared to children ten to twelve years
of age and adults. To meet infant requirements
the concentration of protein in formula must be
higher than in breast milk: more than 15 grams
per liter in formula versus 9-11 grams in breast
milk. Despite these higher added levels, studies
report that the TRP levels in formula-fed infants
are still low. Low levels of TRP in infancy may
be related to the development of behavioral disorders
like ADHD.36
Underscoring the crucial importance of adequate
levels of this amino acid in infant nutrition
is the fact that the metabolites of TRP are unique
among amino acids. TRP with tetrabiopterin
(BH4) and dioxygen as cofactors is converted
to 5- hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP) which readily
crosses the blood-brain barrier. 5-HTP is then
converted to serotonin which is further metabolized
in the pineal gland to melatonin.
The pathway of TRP that leads to B3 (niacin)
formation requires B1 (thiamine), B2 (riboflavin)
and B6 (pyridoxine). Niacin is necessary to
prevent pellagra.36 With unenriched whey in
formula, babies are at risk of insufficient TRP for serotonin synthesis in the brain.
Excessive protein intake represents a useless
metabolic load to the infant, but if the protein
amount is reduced in infant formulas more
toward the standard value of human milk, this
causes a reduction in the tryptophan and taurine
concentrations in the serum of formula-fed infants,
even when they contain excess whey protein.
Recently, whey sources with elevated concentrations
of alpha-lactalbumin have become
available, which has permitted the development
of formulas with increased concentrations of this
protein and decreased concentrations of betalactoglobulin.
Human milk is high in TRP and
provides optimal conditions for the availability
of serotonin, the body’s feel-good chemical.36
The U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend
lowfat or skim milk for children older than two
years of age. In 2013, Mark DeBoer, associate
professor of pediatrics at the University of Virginia
and his colleagues fed toddlers and children
between the ages of two and four one percent and
skim milk, and found that children who drank
milk which has a higher amount of protein than
whole fat milk, gained more weight and had a
higher body mass index than those who drank
whole milk or even 2 percent milk. “Children
drinking 1 percent or skim milk at both two
and four years were more likely to become overweight/
obese between those time points.” It was
indeed the higher amount of protein in the milk
that caused the weight gain, not fat.37
COW’S MILK HYDROSYLATE FORMULA
Protein hydrosylate formulas based on
casein or whey are considered hypoallergenic.
They were first introduced in the 1940s and are
recommended for babies who have food allergies
and colic because of supposed protein sensitivity.
Similac Alimentum, Enfamil Nutramigen,
and Enfamil Pregestimil are specific brands.
These formulas are more expensive than others
on the market.49 These formulas are extensively
processed with heat and chemicals to break
down the protein to some extent. The result is a
product with “a very sour and bitter taste and an
unpleasant sulfur smell.”49Even so, these formulas
have some intact proteins, which can trigger
an allergic response; 10-30 percent of allergic
babies cannot tolerate these formulas.49
In studies of babies using this formula compared
to breastfed babies, iron status was lower,
and amounts of amino acids excessive. Infants
had significantly higher serum urea nitrogen than
did all other groups. Plasma threonine, valine,
phenylalanine, methionine, and tryptophan were
significantly higher in the hydrolysate formula
groups than in the breastfed group. Plasma tyrosine
was significantly lower.50
Atopic dermatitis continues to be a problem
in formula-fed babies and rates have been continually
increasing. The FDA recently stated that
“Partially hydrolyzed formulas should not be fed
to infants who are allergic to milk or to infants
with existing milk allergy symptoms.”51
SODIUM IN INFANT FORMULA
Higher sodium concentrations in infant formulas
require a greater water intake for excretion
and produce increased thirst. The increased thirst
in the formula-fed infant is often interpreted
as hunger by the mother and the infant is fed
more formula. The infant fed artificial formula
needs a greater water intake in order to excrete
the increased amount of substances produced
from metabolizing infant formula. In the past,
however, mothers feeding infant formula did not
give additional water and infant kidneys were
compromised.63 Could this early exposure to high
sodium levels set the stage for hypertension in
later life?
FATS IN INFANT FORMULA
Popular books on baby and infant care and
scientific articles of the past sixty years have
claimed that the fats necessary for brain growth
are the long-chain polyunsaturated fats like DHA
and that saturated fats must be avoided at all
cost. This disastrous misinformation is based on
the radical change in government dietary policy
promulgated by Ancel Keys, a scientist who rose
to become a leading authority on heart disease,
cholesterol and saturated fats in the 1950s. His
misguided recommendations were adopted and
found their way into every home as researchers,
dietitians, and health personnel jumped on his
anti-saturated fat bandwagon.64 Babies were
harmed by this restriction of saturated fats as
these same dangerous theories found their way
into the recipes for commercial infant formula.65
In keeping with this lowfat theme, babies
also were the subjects in experimental research
when pediatricians and researchers in the 1960s
and 1970s recommended skim milk for infants
beginning at four to six months of age. The
advice didn’t work out so well—for the babies.
A small amount of safflower oil and fat-soluble
vitamins was then added. The infants drank
enormous quantities of the milk and ate a lot of
cereal. They gained in length at a normal rate
but had slow or no weight gain. They also lost
fat as shown in skinfold thickness because they
were using stored fat to make up for the loss of
fat in the diet. The researchers concluded that
this diet was “likely to be seriously detrimental
to the infants.”65
Saturated fats are essential for the newborn
and children in periods of rapid growth. They
provide a diverse range of molecular function and
actions within cells and tissues beyond providing
simple energy. Fatty acids are required for
membrane synthesis, modifications of proteins
and carbohydrates, construction of various structural
elements in cells and tissues, production
of signaling compounds, and for oxidative fuel.
Saturated fats are so important that the body has
a mechanism to synthesize them from acetate in
the absence of sufficient dietary fat. Feeding a
lowfat diet results in membrane fragility which
can disrupt cell signaling and many functions of
the cell. This condition can be remedied by a high
fat diet. The body has a control mechanism for
the production of saturated fat—when they are
plentiful in the diet, new synthesis is inhibited.66
In fact, cells produce a remarkable diversity
of saturated fatty acids under particular conditions,
and although not all of their functions are
known, they are clearly not simply interchangeable.
Saturated fatty acids have been suggested
as being the preferred fuel for the heart.66
Baby formula today is high in polyunsaturated
oils, which can quickly become rancid.
They also may contain trans fats from the deodorizing
process. GM crops can be sources of
the oils. Fats undergo further processing when
converted to a powdered form. Consequently
some baby formulas contain the preservatives
ascorbyl palmitate and beta carotenes to prevent
oxidation of fats.
High-oleic safflower or sunflower oil is
commonly used in infant formulas. Safflower
oil itself is a relatively inexpensive oil, mainly
produced by Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland,
and BASF (a German chemical company), but it
is high in the polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA)
linoleic acid, which makes up about 55-77 percent
of the oil. Safflower oil has been linked with the
development of heart disease. But the hybridized
high-oleic safflower oil contains only 12-16
percent linoleic with 70-80 percent as oleic acid,
a monounsaturated fat (MUFA). Hybrids are
not genetically modified but radiation and toxic
chemicals are used to produce them. PUFAs
are highly subject to rancidity and were partly
hydrogenated in the past to preserve shelf life.
The label on current infant formulas does not
indicate whether the PUFAs in the product are
hydrogenated. Because PUFAs are so prone to
oxidation, increasing the MUFA would give the
product a longer shelf life.68
Coconut oil is another fat used in infant
formula. It is a unique plant fat, which is high
in saturated fats the infant desperately needs to
grow and develop. Saturated fats like coconut
oil are usually not subject to oxidation. However
animal sources of saturated fats, which give a
wider range of the various saturated fatty acids
found abundantly in the breast milk of a wellnourished
mother, are still missing from infant
formula.66
Soybean oil, another common oil used in
infant formula, contains 34 percent PUFA with
24 percent MUFA. Most soybean oil in the U.S.
is a product of GM soy beans. It is extracted
from the beans with high heat and hexane, and
the deodorization process may result in trans
fats in the oil. In the past most soybean oils were
partially hydrogenated to preserve their shelf life.
But recently the U.S. government recognized
trans fats as harmful substances, especially
damaging to the heart. Soybean oil is reputed
to contain omega-3 fatty acids but these fats are
very sensitive to heat and quickly become rancid
and therefore harmful.69
Another prominent fat used in formulas is
palm olein, which is not the same as saturated
palm oil. It is added to provide palmitic acid at a
level similar to that found in breast milk. However,
palmitic acid from palm olein is chemically
different from that in breast milk and is poorly absorbed. The fat reacts with calcium to form
insoluble soaps and causes constipation.70
In randomized double-blind prospective
trials palm olein has been found to hinder bone
mineralization and development in infants because
of reduced calcium absorption. In formulas
where palm olein is used and most of the calcium
is added in the form of calcium salts as in soybased
and casein hydrolysate formulas, incidence
of hard stools and constipation are increased.70
For many years, the FDA did not allow
canola oil in infant formula, but today the FDA
regards canola oil as GRAS (generally regarded
as safe) for use in them. The multinational company,
Danone, applied to the FDA in 2013 to use
canola as a source of fat in infant formulas to be
sold in the U.S. In a letter responding to Danone’s
application, the FDA had no questions regarding
the inclusion of canola oil as a source of fat in
infant formulas at levels up to 31 percent of the
total fat blend. Danone claimed in its petition that
canola oil has a higher alpha linoleic acid (ALA)
content than soy (11 percent versus 8 percent) and
less saturated fat (7 percent versus 15 percent)
than soybean oil, offering a “healthier” fat profile
overall.71 Canola oil is mostly produced from GM
seed, is processed at high heat, extracted with the
neurotoxin hexane, and contains trans fats and
other rancid products.72
DHA AND ARA
DHA (decosahexanoic acid) is the central focus
of advertising for infant formulas and almost
all formulas contain this synthetic ingredient.
Abbott Laboratories now is using OptiGRO™,
a blend of DHA, lutein and vitamin E, as their
main calling card while Mead Johnston offers
“choline and DHA” for its importance in “brain
and eye development.”74
DHA is the most abundant omega-3 fatty
acid in the brain making up about 40-50 percent
of the polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). In
addition, 50 percent of the weight of a neuron’s
plasma membrane is composed of DHA. About
40 percent of the retina is made of DHA. It is also
very important component in the skin, sperm
and testicles. It can be derived directly from human
milk but amounts vary widely dependent
on dietary intake. Babies cannot synthesize it
from the vegetable source, alpha linoleic acid
(ALA), and this reaction is slow or non-existent
in humans for many reasons. Professionals recommend
300 mg per day of DHA for pregnant
and lactating women. The average consumption
of DHA among U.S. and Canadian women is between
45 mg and 115 mg per day while Japanese
women consume the highest amounts. DHA is
found primarily in fish and fish oil. Because of
presumed health benefits, synthetic DHA is now
added to baby formula.74
ARA (arachadonic acid) is a polyunsaturated
fatty acid naturally synthesized by the body
from linoleic acid. The work of Susan Carlson
and colleagues established the importance of
ARA levels for growth in the infant. She also
found that babies whose formula was supplemented
with fish oil but not ARA had slower
growth rate than those on conventional formulas
and that when DHA was added to infant formula,
levels of ARA decreased due to competition in
the enzyme available needed to make both conversions.
75
In 2004 the FDA accepted the claim made
by Martek Biosciences Corp for inclusion of
ARASCO and DHASCO into infant formula.
ARASCO is artificially produced ARA from
Mortierella alpina oil and DHASCO is produced
from Crypthecodinium cohnii oil. These ingredients
are extracted from algae and soil fungus
with hexane—a neurotoxic, petroleum-based
solvent. The National Organic Standards Board
stated that hexane-extracted algal oil and fungal
oil should not be allowed in organic foods—but
the USDA has failed to act, and hexane-extracted
DHA and ARA remain in organic infant formula.
76
When the C. cohnii and M. alpina oils first
appeared in infant formula, FDA received dozens
of reports from physicians and parents who
noticed diarrhea, vomiting and other gastrointestinal
distress in infants given formula with
these oils—symptoms that disappeared when the
infant was switched to the exact same formula
without these novel additives.77
Three of the most prominent and respected
independent scientists in the field of infant formula
science stated in 2010 that the scientific
evidence supporting the addition of DHA and
ARA to infant formula is “recognized by most
investigators and Key Opinion Leaders in the field to be weak,” and that “this field of research
has been driven to an extent by enthusiasm and
vested interest.”76 The World Health Organization’s
Director of Nutrition for Health and Development
wrote a letter in 2011 to members of
the European Parliament to let them know that
no solid evidence existed to confirm that adding
DHA to infant formula would provide important
clinical benefits.76
PREBIOTIC SUBSTANCES
Oligosaccharides are the third largest component
in human milk. In an attempt to emulate
human milk properties, formula companies add
specific prebiotics such as galactooligosaccharides
(GOS) to some of their products to stimulate
the growth of beneficial bacteria. Polydextrose,
made from glucose, is a common GOS. A 2008
Chinese study found that supplementation with
low levels of GOS “seemed to improve stool
frequency, decrease fecal pH, and stimulate
intestinal bifidobacteria and lactobacilli up
to levels as found in breastfed infants.” The
fructooligosaccharides (FOS) inulin and pectin
hydrosylate have also been tried as prebiotics in
infant formula studies.
Another possible property of prebiotics is
the potential to prevent allergic response or food
hypersensitivity. A Cochrane Database Review
in 2007 determined that “there is insufficient
evidence to determine the role of prebiotic
supplementation of infant formula for prevention
of allergic disease and food reduction in eczema
in infants.”78
CONTAMINANTS IN FORMULA
A study in 2014 from the U.K. found that
aluminum concentrations in infant formula were
too high. Researchers from Keele University in
England published two articles on aluminum
contamination in ready-to-drink and powdered
formulas and found that some brands contain
over one hundred times more aluminum than
breast milk. Aluminum was highest in products
that contain an aluminum seal between the cap
and the product. “Soy is a significant source of
aluminum contamination in infant formula,” said
the authors. Other sources of aluminum are additives
such as calcium and phosphorus salts as
well as the infant formula manufacturing process
itself. The authors say that “despite their 2010
publication of the aluminum content of fifteen
well-known infant formula products, manufacturers
have not yet addressed the problem.”81
In 2013, two infants with kidney problems
died of aluminum intoxication, and powdered
formula was the source. “Brain and bone disease
caused by high levels of aluminum in the body
have been seen in children with kidney disease.
Bone disease has also been seen in children
taking some medicines containing aluminum.
In these children, the bone damage is caused by
aluminum in the stomach preventing the absorption
of phosphate, a chemical compound required
for healthy bones.”82
The CDC has not determined whether
aluminum causes birth defects in humans. In
the U.S., substantial amounts of aluminum are
found in drinking water. Babies get a double dose of aluminum if fed soy formula made with tap
water.
Aluminum is also found in vaccines. According
to researchers, “experimental research.
. . . clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have
a potential to induce serious immunological
disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in
adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity,
long-term brain inflammation and associated
neurological complications and may thus have
profound and widespread adverse health consequences.
In our opinion, the possibility that
vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the
risk of potential adverse effects underestimated,
has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical
and scientific community.”83
In the first U.S. study of urinary arsenic in
babies, Dartmouth College researchers found
that formula-fed infants had higher arsenic levels
than breastfed infants, and that breast milk
itself contained very low arsenic concentrations.
Arsenic is found in rice products like rice syrup,
rice milk and rice baby cereal, as well as in apple and grape juice.84
BISPHENOL A
The European Safety Authority (EFSA) has determined that canned
commercial formulas are a significant source of the chemical bisphenol A
(BPA). Formula cans are lined with BPA. It is also part of the composition
of polycarbonate baby bottles. BPA is a hormone disruptor and is linked
with early puberty in girls, attention deficit disorder, ADHD and urogenital
abnormalities in boys. BPA has also been found in breast milk.87
CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE
Formula-fed infants have high levels of the pathogen C. difficile in
their gut bacteria. C. difficile is a bacterium whose growth is linked to use
of antibiotics. The substance p-Cresol, formed via anaerobic metabolism
of the essential amino acid tyrosine by bacteria such as C. difficile, is a
highly toxic carcinogen, which also causes adverse effects on the central
nervous system, the cardiovascular system, lungs, kidney and liver. C.
difficile is a well-established causal factor in colitis and inflammatory
bowel disease.88
In a recent case-control study, children with autism were found to be
significantly more likely to have been formula-fed rather than breastfed.
The study did not distinguish if children were fed organic or conventional formulas, but we know that non-organic soy formula is contaminated with
glyphosate, and this could be a contributing factor to the incidence of both
autism and C. difficile overgrowth.88 According to Dr. David Perlmutter,
children with autism have higher levels of propionic acid (PPA) in their
blood which is toxic to the brain. Clostridia species produce large amounts
PPA which also weakens tight junctions in the intestines allowing access to
the blood stream. PPA directly alters the brain’s ability to use energy and
depletes the brain of antioxidants, neurotransmitters, and omega-3 fats.89
HOMEMADE FORMULAS
Throughout human history, women who could not nurse their babies
have turned to other methods of feeding infants, which included animal
milk and pre-masticated foodstuffs. Women in the countryside worked
outdoors during certain times of the year, and the portable infant was
taken with them as the milk source was also portable and readily available.
However, when the Industrial Revolution called women to work in droves
in urban factory settings, this natural, sensible arrangement was no longer
possible and early weaning or feeding of alternative foods became a harsh
reality.10
In the countryside breast milk substitutes were prepared with whole
milk or “top milk” (cream) which made a more digestible offering. A home
recipe from 1908 contained instructions to obtain the milk both morning
and evening and then let it stand for several hours to ladle off the top cream.
This recipe included more fresh cream, cow’s milk, limewater (a calcium
supplement), brown sugar and boiled water.90
From the 1930s or early 1940s, most home-made formulas fed to infants
in the United States were prepared with evaporated milk. A typical
evaporated milk formula, from around 1949, included one can (13 fl oz)
evaporated milk, 19 fl oz water, and 1 oz corn syrup (Karo) or sucrose.
If cow’s milk was used it was pasteurized and homogenized. Bottles and
nipples were thoroughly sterilized.91
RAW MILK AND INFANT FEEDING
In the 1920s and 1930s Dr. Weston Price documented his use of raw
milk to improve the diets of sickly children during the Great Depression
years and showed it was indeed safe, wholesome
and healthy. Dr. Francis Pottenger, Jr. showed the
benefits of raw milk in his research with cats.
His cats receiving raw milk flourished while
those receiving heated milk suffered from underdeveloped
chests; were infected with ticks,
fleas and lice; and had irregular crowded teeth
with protruding faces and narrower and smaller
skulls. Cat mothers fed heated milk experienced
difficult deliveries. The resulting offspring were
sterile. Dr. Pottenger also was concerned with
differences in the development of the jaw and
facial muscles between formula-fed and breastfed
infants.92
In May 1945 Coronet magazine published
“Raw Milk Can Kill,” a seemingly factual article
about a town called Crossroads, USA where
many died from undulant fever contracted from
consuming raw milk. The article was entirely
fabricated—there was no town called Crossroads—
but generated a furor aimed at pasteurizing
all milk. To add fuel to the fire, in August
1946, The Readers Digest reprinted the story.
This carefully planned campaign played a role in
the mandatory pasteurization laws instituted in
1948, soon after these articles were published.93
RAW MILK FORMULAS
Despite this deliberately planned scandal
over the purported dangers of raw milk, Adele
Davis, the most popular nutritionist of the
1940s-1970s, advocated “certified raw milk” as
the best milk to use in formulas for babies who
couldn’t nurse. In her bestselling book, Let’s
Raise Healthy Children, she published several infant formulas using raw milk. Mrs. Davis
also recommended supplementary cod liver oil
drops.94
She disdained commercial formulas and referred
to children who were fed these formulas as
“fatties in training,” remarking on the tendency
of formula-fed babies to be overweight, a condition
which she said could persist into adulthood.
Apparently she was right as current research
strongly implicates commercial formulas in the
risk of obesity and diabetes.94
During her career as a dietitian, Mrs. Davis
worked in public schools and for obstetricians.
She appeared on many major TV programs, on
the lecture circuit, and as lecturer at many college
campuses. She supported free speech on
food safety and food freedoms. In 1972 Time
magazine called her “the high priestess of a new
nutrition religion” and “the Oracle.” Her books
sold over one million copies. Adele was a great
admirer of Dr. Pottenger and Dr. Price, discussed
their work in detail, and praised them lavishly in
her book on child care.95
Around 1999 Dr. Mary Enig and Sally Fallon
Morell of the Weston A. Price Foundation
developed a raw milk formula for babies using
fresh cow’s milk or goat’s milk, and a liver-based
formula for those babies who could not tolerate
animal milks.96 These formulas are still very
much in use today and a boon to parents who are
determined not to feed their babies commercial
formula. They are promoted and supported by
popular health pundit Dr. Joseph Mercola.97
A full description of the three formulas can
be found in The Nourishing Traditions Book
of Baby and Child Care, and in Nourishing Traditions. Sarah Pope, the
Healthy Home Economist, presents a comprehensive video on preparation
of these formulas on the WAPF website (westonaprice.org) and on
YouTube.98
WHAT’S MISSING IN INFANT FORMULA?
In contrast to formula where every drop is identical, breast milk from
a well-nourished mother is an intricate and ever-changing composition
of ingredients prepared by the mother herself for her developing infant:
customized nutrition at its best. Scientists have not yet discovered all the
many substances in breast milk—they have barely scratched the surface.
Breast milk is not just food but “represents a most sophisticated signaling
system of mammalian evolution promoting a regulatory network for
species-specific, postnatal growth and metabolic programming.” Scientists
studying the “message” in mother’s milk see it as nothing less than
a program for life.99
Research indicates that “specific micro-constituents of milk, alone and
in concert, contribute to neurobiological, cognitive, somatic, metabolic,
and immune development in infants among mothers within species.”100
Drs. Katie Hinde and J. Bruce German, known for their work in decoding
the constituents in mammalian breast milk, in their 2012 article called
human milk “the Rosetta Stone of food and nourishment…reflecting…the
most elegant and compelling example…of 200 million years of symbiotic
co-evolution between producer and consumer.”
The authors underscore one of many ways in which human milk
is unique: “Human milk includes highly selective oligosaccharides that
support the growth of only a very unique group of intestinal bacteria (Bifidobacterium
longum v. infantis) that co-evolved with mammals” which
guide “the development and phenotype of a bacterial ecosystem” which
aids “infant digestive, metabolic, and immunological functions.” These
oligosaccharides are not digested by the infant or by simple bacteria but
are the primary food source for B. longum, which are critical for health
and nutrition as they modulate immune responses in the intestine and
participate in the bioconversion of digested nutrients. They also serve as
competitive inhibitors of the establishment of pathogenic bacteria implicated in chronic infant diarrhea, a leading cause
of childhood mortality worldwide.100
Lactoferrin and lysozyme are unique immune
constituents with anti-bacterial properties
that are found in higher concentrations in human
milk than in cow’s milk, which indicates that
these substances are highly important for the
infant. In an attempt to replicate these immune
components, Chinese researchers inserted human
DNA into transgenic cloned cows which
produced human-type lactoferrin and lysozyme
in the milk. The implications of such genetic
grotesqueries are unknown.100
Food preferences can be learned through
breast milk and appetite is formed, in part,
through the foods consumed during early development.
When mothers eat garlic, for example,
infants drink more breast milk.101
Dr. Hinde and Dr. German are convinced
that “The period of breastfeeding, by shaping
healthy food preferences and healthy growth
trajectories, is a potentially critical period for
combating future obesity and dealing with our
changing environments. Lifestyle modifications
in adulthood, once neurobiological and metabolic
pathways are well-established, are likely to have
a much smaller and more transient effect on
phenotype.”100 If this is so, appetite and food
preferences of the formula-fed infant will be
based on products of conventional agriculture
such as sugar, vegetable oils, damaged proteins,
GMOs and synthetic ingredients, and linked
to the development of inflammation, obesity,
chronic disease and premature death.
LACTOSE
Lactose, a disaccharide composed of glucose
and galactose, is the main carbohydrate
in breast milk and unique to the mammary
gland. The amount of lactose in human milk
is independent of the mother’s consumption of
lactose and seems to be fixed. Bovine milk has
a much lower amount of lactose and to approximate
breast milk, it must be added to formula,
although some formulas use maltodextrin, (made
from rice, corn, potatoes, sugar or glucose syrup
solids) instead of lactose. Lactose is a natural
component of whey.102
Lactose plays a major role in milk synthesis
and draws water into the milk, forming a liquid.
It is needed to absorb calcium and up-regulates
innate immunity, leading to protection of the
baby’s gut against pathogens.103
FATS
Fats are the main source of energy and
carriers of fat-soluble vitamins which provide
essential omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. In
human milk and most formulas, 50 percent of
calories are supplied by fats, most of which is
in the form of triglycerides of saturated and unsaturated
origin. While two hundred fatty acids
have been identified in human milk lipids, with
fifty metabolically active, the major fatty acids
are palmitic, stearic, oleic, and linoleic with
medium-chain fatty acids also present. Palmitic
acid, the major saturated fat in breast milk, makes
up 17-25 percent of fatty acids.
The fatty acid composition of human milk
fat varies with the mother’s diet, particularly
the omega-6 (linoleic acid) and omega-3 (alphalinolenic
acid and DHA) fatty acids. It also varies
widely within and among different populations.
Levels of linoleic acid have increased over the
last century in step with the increase in omega-
6-rich processed vegetable oils in the diet.104
Lactating women who are on high-carbohydrate,
lowfat diets, women who are malnourished,
and those with infections or metabolic
disorders may see a decrease in their milk fat
levels.105
In addition to DHA and ARA, breast
milk contains the other long-chain fatty acid
eicosapentanoic acid (EPA), which is found at
almost the same levels as ARA “thus giving
some legitimacy to the notion that big-brained
mammals need it.” Both dietary DHA and EPA
reduce plasma ARA acid concentrations. Formula
manufacturers have chosen not to add EPA
to infant formula.106
In 2010 Du Pont developed “a clean and
sustainable source of EPA” through fermentation
using metabolically engineered (that is, genetically
engineered) strains of the oleaginous yeast
Yarrowia lipolytica , sold as New Harvest EPA
oil in GM Nutrition stores. The New Harvest
website is no longer active and the project seems
to be abandoned as a supplement but we may see
this genetically modified EPA product sooner
than later. In 2011 the FDA had no problem with DuPont’s petition for GRAS status for the GM
yeast in producing EPA for use in a wide variety
of foods, even chewing gum, but thankfully not
yet infant formula.107
CHOLESTEROL: ESSENTIAL COMPONENT
Breastfed babies receive large amounts of
cholesterol from the milk of well-fed mothers,
which ensures healthy brain growth. Cholesterol
requirements for growth alone are 36-64 mg/day,
excluding requirements for the brain, nervous
system, and skin. This component is quite low
or missing in formulas and formula-fed babies,
especially those fed soy formula, and these infants
must make their own cholesterol for use in
brain and body.
In a study by Dr. Charles Wong, breastfed
babies receiving higher intakes of cholesterol
through breast milk had a 3.3 fold lower cholesterol
turnover; that is, their bodies made less
cholesterol than babies on cow-based and soybased
formulas. Those babies fed soy formula
had the highest cholesterol synthesis as they were
not receiving it in their formula so their bodies
up-regulated the process to supply it. Dr. Wong
concluded that children and adults who were
breastfed milk from a well-nourished mother
may not have to make as much cholesterol as
those children and adults who were missing it
in early life.108
Cholesterol is an essential component of cell
membranes and is required for growth, replication
and maintenance. The central nervous system
(CNS) contains 23 percent of the total body
cholesterol. Two cholesterol pools exist in the
brain: 70 percent is found in the myelin sheath,
and 30 percent in the neurons and glial cells.109
This sterol is important for brain function in
numerous ways: it forms nerve synapses; enables
neurotransmitter, opioid and receptor signaling;
helps the transport of amino acids; and performs
many other tasks. Cholesterol also plays an important
role in the dopamine transporter (DAT)
function, an important regulatory component in
maintaining dopamine homeostasis in the brain,
which is the primary target for drugs like Ritalin
(methylphenidate), prescribed for ADHD. Dopamine
is a major neurotransmitter in the brain in
charge of the reward mechanism and many other
essential functions.110 Low levels of cholesterol in
nerve cell membrane directly result in a decrease
in the number of serotonin receptors, resulting in
an overall reduction of serotonergic transmission
in the brain.111 Cholesterol is also the activator
for the oxytocin receptor in the brain and in the
absence of cholesterol, this receptor inactivates.
Lack of oxytocin in autistic children is involved
with their inability to recognize voices, faces,
and other visual cues. Many autistic children
on the spectrum have low cholesterol levels.
Oxytocin is also responsible for the “let down”
response for the milk to start flowing from the
breast and for the new mother’s attachment to
her baby.112
Is this lack of cholesterol in infant formula
tied to compromised brain development and
behavioral problems in childhood? When babies
have to make cholesterol at such a young age,
can they produce enough to adequately support
brain function and does this process program the
infant for higher cholesterol levels in adulthood?
HUMAN MILK LIPASE
Lipases are enzymes needed for the breakdown
and digestion of fats. In newborns pancreatic
lipase is not fully developed but a lipase
specific to breast milk is available to the breastfed
baby. Bile salt–dependent lipase (BSDL),
also known as carboxyl ester lipase (CEL), is
an enzyme of the mammary gland which can
completely hydrolyze triglycerides, phospholipids,
cholesterol and lipid–soluble vitamins and
release long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids,
which makes BSDL highly desirable for neonatal
digestion. Breastfed infants absorb fat better than
formula-fed infants due to the presence of BSDL
in human milk, which is not present in formulas
made from soy or processed cow’s milk. Studies
show that the BSDL remains active in the infant’s
gastrointestinal tract and therefore contributes
significantly to fat digestion and digestion of
vitamin A (retinol esters).113
The lipase activity is lost on pasteurization
and fat absorption from the milk is reduced by
as much as one-third in preterm infants. When
preterm infants were fed their mothers’ milk they
gained significantly more in length and weight
than when fed pasteurized milk.114
THE RISE OF FORMULA FEEDING
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
the old and honorable tradition of the
wet nurse was the preferred alternative when an
infant’s mother was unable to provide milk for
her child. With time, however, a campaign was
launched to discredit wet nursing in general.
The unmarried status of some of these mothers
offended the moral code of influential social
groups. Rumors circulated that the women were
of low morals and carried venereal diseases.
Besides, most modern families did not have
the means or the inclination to have a strange
woman move into their homes. Gradually, by
persuasive advertising and other clever tactics,
the formula industry got the attention of mothers
everywhere.10
The formula manufacturers’ main slogan
in those days was that their formulas were “scientific”
and thereby certain to contain all the
ingredients that the baby needed to grow and be
healthy. At that time infant mortality was high
and breast milk and cow’s milk were named as
culprits. Further, putative experts claimed that
mother’s milk was not adequate to support the
child.
Sigmund Freud theorized that infants experienced
suckling as sexual pleasure. Mothers were
scandalized and to head off the development of
infantile incestuous desire, breastfeeding, holding,
fondling and cuddling were all abandoned.
Virtuous mothers instead propped their babies
up in high chairs with bottles.
Physicians weren’t much interested in birth
and breastfeeding until the development of the
specialties of obstetrics and pediatrics at the beginning
of the twentieth century. At first, formula
manufacturers sold their products directly to the
public. But later pediatricians became intensely
involved in artificial infant feeding, developing
and selling their own formulas and writing their
own prescriptions. In the 1920s and 1930s, the
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) even
pressured formula manufacturers to sell their
products without directions, instructing the buyer
to get the directions from their doctors. If the
companies did not comply, the