>Martek sells DHA culled from microscopic marine algae.

This is a very innocuous way to phrase it.  The marine algae do not
*ordinarily* manufacture DHA.  They have been genetically engineered to do
so.  Many people are not thrilled about genetically engineered tomatoes.
How will they feel about infant formula made with DHA from genetically
engineered algae?

>Breast-fed babies develop slightly higher IQs than bottle-fed
>ones, although many scientists credit that to breast-feeding
>mothers' typical higher education and income.

Gee, then how come it's been true ever since the first study of Hoefer and
Hardy, back in 1929, when the breastfeeding moms were the poor immigrant
women from Eastern Europe, and the bottle-feeding moms were the upper-class,
well-educated people?  And how come it holds true for modern studies where
all the people have the same educational level and the same social class
(i.e., where those confounding variables are controlled for)?  Do the
critics really think that researchers who study this are all idiots who
haven't the foggiest how to control for confounding variables?


>Yet there is no sign
>younger generations are less intelligent or have poorer vision,
>Heird said.

Oh my, really?  Then why all the national (US) outcry about how the children
aren't learning anything in school?  Of course, most people blame it on the
teachers, or on the lack of Christian prayer in public schools, not on lack
of breastfeeding -- but could it be that all the kids graduating from high
school who can't read really have an acquired learning disability from
formula use?

Anyone willing to stand with me on a high soapbox and start refering to
formula-fed kids as having non-HIV AIDS?  They do, in effect, have an
*aquired* immune deficiency syndrome. . . No flames please, just an idle
thought.

Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University