Linda Palmer and others have posted on the changes made from time to time in the composition of factory-made artificial baby milks (the so-called "infant formulae").  I'm not going to comment on actual ingredients, but more broadly.

What has struck me, looking at a broad sweep of time, has been that each wave of changes has been promoted as closest to mother's milk, or the "best" food for babies, or similar claims.  Yet, the same companies had been making similar claims for the product that preceded the change.  They were, in effect, contradicting themselves, yet for decades the consumer and the health services never picked up on that.  They should have been asking - if the new, "improved" product was described as almost identical to mother's milk - what about the claims that the previous product was equivalent or similar to mother's milk?  The advertising hype, and words such as "new" and "improved", can be very persuasive.  There is more monitoring of such claims now, in Australia, through APMAIF (despite the limitations of this monitoring system)

The home-modified artificial baby milks, made from cow's milk (or occasionally goat's milk) were concocted at home from recipes provided by the Sisters (nurses) at the free baby clinics. These were favoured by the health services in the inter-war years (1920s-'30s), the 1940s and well into the postwar period.   The cow's milk was usually the liquid variety, but it could be in dried or evaporated form.  The recipes involved dilution with water and the addition of sugar (preferably "sugar of milk", though cane sugar was also used).  The cow's milk had to be brought to the boil.  (Some earlier recipes involved an "emulsion", or fat, but babies - including breastfed babies - might be given one separately, e.g. Hypol in the 1940s.)  Mothers were told to give vitamin drops, including for breastfed babies, and juice from around 4 weeks, at first a few drops in water, by bottle.  In Queensland for many years, they were told to give a very salty yeast extract, Vegemite, in water from a few weeks of age for vit. B1, and this was also recommended in at least one other state, but at a later age.  In hot climates the salt content should have been of particular concern, as I pointed out in my first book in 1974.  Water was much used, e.g. to space out the feedings to 4-hourly.  

In some states, the mother book that all new mothers were given did not provide the actual recipes, except for an emergency one, as mothers were expected to attend the baby clinic to be given a recipe after assessment of their baby.  Advertising of evaporated milk by Carnation in the 1960s criticised the factory-modified "complete" products, stating that using Carnation allowed for a more individual approach, under the direction of the nurse or doctor.  In most or all states, mothers were given individual instructions, written into a booklet the mother carried wth her, and the clinic Sisters provided the recipes for any changes.  Keep in mind, though, that mothers did not always follow the Clinic advice exactly.

Now for some semantics (terminology).  These home-modified feedings were referred to (depending on the State) as "recipes" or "milk mixtures" and similar terms, as they were individually provided formulae.  Spock, in his 1945/46 first edition, used the term "formula" for his recipes for home-modified cow's milk.  This was *not* the term he used for factory-made products.  In Australia, factory-made proprietory products were usually referred to by brand name, at least into the 1970s.  The term "formula" gradually crept into usage after that, and it seemed to creep into advertising first.  It is, I believe, a misleading word, implying laboratories rather than factories.  On the other hand, it replaced use of brand name for these products, a practice that unwittingly seemed to endorse particular brands.  For my own use, I prefer to use a more accurate descriptor, e.g. "artificial baby milk" or "factory-made milk".

What has all this got to do with breastfeeding?  Plenty, as we need to know the past and attitudes that are still influencing mohters and their families.

Virginia

Virginia Thorley, OAM, PhD, IBCLC.
Lactation Consultant (original cohort of 1985).
Cultural historian of the History of Medicine.
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
[log in to unmask]

Date:    Sat, 2 Jun 2007 11:16:29 -0400
From:    Linda Palmer <>
Subject:
They perform comparison studies in usually hundreds of babies at a=20
time, occasionally thousands, comparing one modification to another.=20
There's follow-up into childhood in some. There are thousands of=20
studies. Obviously, as we are all learning more about nutritional=20
components, so are they -- in fact I believe they've been a part of the=20=

impetus for omega-3 awareness for all of us in their recognition that=20
part of the brain damage caused/allowed by formula-feeding may be=20
related to DHA. Of course, financial considerations (greed) prevent=20
formula manufacturers from even using some of the best of their=20
science.

Still, the best, so far, nutritional balances have been worked-out over=20=

the century (and if only their science were as good as their marketing).=20=

Now the homemade formula makers could evaluate what they have and=20
compare it to that which has been developed already --- and hopefully=20
improve upon it. They can't base so much on human milk as the=20
absorption/accessibility of the nutrients is so incredibly different and=20=

difficult --- as the formula companies have long realized.=20

The hope of the raw-milk supporters is that some of the absorption=20
facilitators in milk may still operate. Actually, studies/reports on some=
=20
of the apparent digestion/absorption benefits of raw animal milks (over=20=

processed milks) show that it's the fermentation effects of the bacteria=20=

in the milk that are providing most of the little bits of benefit -- not =
so=20
much actual facilitators in the milks. Not that this is bad; it's a good=20=

solution to some of the drawbacks of formula and cow's milk. Then, just=20=

like the reductions in immunity and nutrition afforded by=20
pasteurized/stored/frozen/re-heated human milk, "raw" milk is seldom=20
so fresh from the source, and of course no animal milk comes close to=20
human milk in its advanced "technology," and certainly in its specificity=
=20
for humans. The immune provisions are miniscule.

Don't think I'm promoting formula, and don't have disdain for the=20
promotion/disinformation practices of the industry. I wrote the=20
article "The Deadly Influence of Formula," which I've re-printed on my=20=

own site sans some of the sensationalism that the original editor had=20
put in: http://www.babyreference.com/InfantDeaths.htm  Even the=20
industry-promoted focus on nutrition successfully draws attention away=20=

from all the other benefits of breastmilk and of nursing itself. The big=20=

travesty (besides all the deaths themselves) is that there is no honesty=20=

about the mortality (and little honesty about the morbidity) caused by=20=

unneeded formula use in industrialized countries (this being the cause=20=

of unneeded formula use/unnecessary deaths). Then the very high=20
formula-death rates in developing countries is all so shamelessly=20
blamed on the water through subtle industry disinformation campaigns.

It's true that any child that dies (of whatever cause), who was being=20
fed a homemade formula (i.e. not provided with "real" artificial=20
breastmilk), will likely set-off large media and court reactions, as a=20=

result of the immense success of formula industry marketing, while no=20
parent has ever been prosecuted for withholding breastmilk, when=20
available.

linda
"Baby Matters

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
Mail all commands to [log in to unmask]
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or [log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet or ([log in to unmask])
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]