One thing to keep in mind when discussing new formulas for abm with other health professionals is just what the cited studies involved.  I certainly have not read the studies, nor do I have details, but just what I read in the slick brochure for Ross' new product said a lot to *me*.  Unfortunately, it will probably take some careful illumination to make it as obvious to *some* nurses and physicians.  Remember how little education in the area of normal human infant feeding they have...
The thing to point out, IMHO, is the small print below the bright, colorful graphs and charts comparing visual acuity and mental/psychomotor development "Breast Milk"-fed infants and infants fed various abm mixtures.  Measurements are taken at up to 12 months.  "Breast Milk"-fed is defined as "mixed feeding: exclusively breastfed for at least 3 months, followed by conventional non-nucleotide-supplemented formula".  Note that a) there is no definition of "exclusively breastfed", and we know well how much that may vary;  b) there is apparently no breastfeeding after 3 months, and we know how much dose-effect there is when effects of breastfeeding are measured; in fact a great many of the studies that I have seen tend to refer to *four* months of very exclusive breastfeeding as a point at which many benefits become quite statistically significant.  Not to mention that some issues affected by feeding do not become apparent until well past 1 year of age.
Other lovely graphics show growth rates of "Breast Milk"-fed and "Improved Similac with Iron"-fed infants to one year.  Once again, the "Breast Milk"-fed babies are noted to be fed "Breast milk with weaning to (old) Similac with Iron".  This time, they don't even mention when the abm feedings took over; although I can't help but wonder if it was that point at which the growth rates slowed so markedly....
One of my big favorites is the page that is headed "Closer than ever to mother's milk".  It is all about how the stolls of babies fed this new abm are "loose and mushy", just like that familiar breastmilk stool.  Now, isn't that wonderful?  Must be just like HM, if the poop looks the same!
I would have to know a lot more about biochemistry to have a grip on just what (if anything) these added nucleotides are good for, and how good.  Indeed, I hope that one of the more learned Lactnetters will post an explanation for the chemically-challenged.  But so far, I'm not impressed.  I understand that a court order was brought against Ross for false and misleading claims that their nucleotides provided protection from infections, but I haven't seen the details.  Jack mentioned the same thing recently.
The Ross brochure on their new abm lists 13 references.  If anyone out there wants to see the citations, let me know.
Willow, in dreary southeast Michigan, USA
[log in to unmask]