>I read somewhere... about a year ago that
there were over 1000 identified constituents in breastmilk and only 60 in
infant formula<

Please don't cite this at the risk of being made to look foolish some day
by some smart-alec student or well-informed physiologist or nutritionist..
There would be over 1000 constituents in any mammalian milk, and cows milk
is no exception. It too has growth promoters and enzymes and all teh rest:
the problem is that many are inappropriate, damaged by heat treatment,
inactivated, or of unknown benefit/risk to the calf, much less the human
baby. (Did you know that even calves don't grow as well on pasteurised milk
or pooled milk as on fresh and mothers' own? As for horses or pigs or
rabbits: I doubt any breeder has tried the experiment with any valued
animal. Which makes doubly entertaining Mead Johnson's choice of infant
formula packaging image: Peter Rabbit's mother apparently disposing of one
too many of his siblings by bottle-feeding  full strength cows milk to a
baby with zero lactose tolerance. Major diarrhoea, dehydration, death
should follow. Why, pray tell, have we had no campaign against such
infanticide? Anyone got the address of Frederick Warne who hold copyright
for poor distressed Peter and his family? No wonder the lad clings to
comfort objects: he could be next to go if Mum has had too much...)

But I digress. Don't ever quote something you don't have impeccable
references for in the anti-formula battle. There may be 60 listed
constituents, or regulated constituents; there are many many more. Most
healthworkers don't know enough about infant formula to be able to
understand the label: what it means, why it lists some things and not
others, and so on. Pity mothers who brand compare.

Maueren M