>  The formula industry could
>certainly have opted for being only beneficial, for use in cases
>of "need."
>
>The thought of choosing to be only beneficial just gave me this thought
>about the prosthetic limb industry demonstrating how much stronger
>and tougher artificial limbs are than human limbs; immune to cuts,
>strains, blood clots, necrosis and tumors, hygenic and easy to clean,
>cutting our nutritional needs, don't need to exercise any more... and
>wouldn't we want the best for ourselves (or our kids)?


Good analogy!
>
>As for the longterm studies you suggest in terms of their modifications
>(yes I misunderstood), in a way I think that their "science" is growing
>so "fast," (again, not that they even use the best of what they know),
>that any long-term studies might be irrelevent before they're done.


If that's the case  - 'we can't do long-term studies because by the 
time the subject babies are aged two, we have changed the formulation 
again' - then they'd have to made to stop 'improving' their product!

>  It
>sure wouldn't hurt them to do a little follow-up though, but that would
>be assuming that they cared, and it would just give them more fuel for
>marketing angles (as one modification will usually outweigh another,
>i.e. prove marketable superiority).


Precisely.

HWN, UK

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

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]