It came to mind that an ILCA tape where I first heard about DHA was of a lecture by a woman researcher who talked about DHA and arachadonic acid and how preterm infants lose out on these since most of it is passed to the infant in the third trimester. She also said that it turned out to be difficult to just add these to formulas because when it was first tried by adding marine fish oils there were detrimental effects to the infants. She had been working on this for *ten* years!! I think I remember that she breastfed her children. Should she be barred from Lactnet? Do we want formula for those infants who cannot obtain breastmilk? Shouldn't it be improved after research has been done to add substances safely? Mardrey Swenson This came to me from AOL News Profiles: By LAURAN NEERGAARD WASHINGTON (AP) - A fat found in breast milk that appears vital for newborns' brain and eye development is at the center of a fierce debate: should the government add this nutrient to the nation's infant formulas? European women already can buy formulas supplemented with the fatty acid DHA, but no formula sold in this country contains it. A company that licensed DHA to manufacturer Mead Johnson contends U.S. companies aren't yet selling his nutrient mainly because it would increase formula prices by 10 cents a can. ``Unless the public is demanding it, it's difficult to add it to the product so the mom knows why she's spending another 10 cents,'' said David Kyle of Martek Biosciences, a Maryland laboratory that sells DHA culled from microscopic marine algae. Supporters say premature infants especially need the fat, arguing it would make formula more like mothers' milk. They cite studies that show breast-fed babies seem slightly smarter than formula-fed infants, and speculate DHA could help bottle-fed babies catch up. But other doctors urge caution, saying any benefits appear small while fat-supplemented formula might actually slow babies' physical growth. The American Academy of Pediatrics says the science is ``too limited'' to decide. ``Even if you add DHA ... you're not mimicking mothers' milk,'' which has numerous additional nutrients, warned Dr. William Heird of the Children's Nutrition Research Center at Baylor University. ``Formula should be the best it can be,'' countered Jan Richter of Action for Corporate Accountability, a consumer group harshly critical of formula. And the debate is highly political: Formula maker Ross Laboratories, reportedly skeptical of DHA, took the unusual step this weekend of flying scientists to Arizona to argue recent discoveries in a closed meeting. Consumer advocates argue manufacturers should absorb the extra cost. They say companies charge more than $2 a can wholesale for formula that costs less than $1 a can to make. Now the Food and Drug Administration is trying to decide the controversy. It hired independent experts to recommend whether DHA and related nutrients should be added to any formula, either for premature babies or healthy ones. ``Those questions are very, very hotly contested,'' said FDA special nutrients chief Beth Yetley. What is undisputed: DHA is a polyunsaturated fatty acid, present in fish and other foods, that women pass to babies through the uterus and breast milk. People also make DHA from another fat already in U.S. formulas, called linolenic acid, although no one is sure how much babies make. DHA is important for early neurological development. 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. Still, bottle-fed babies have less DHA than breast-fed ones. And premature infants, most susceptible to neurological problems, have less time to absorb their mothers' DHA. The question is whether adding DHA to formula helps babies. Dr. Susan Carlson of the University of Tennessee, Memphis, found DHA-supplemented formula helped premature babies develop good vision somewhat faster. Some studies indicate DHA formula also helps them score higher on vision-attention tests believed to predict intelligence. But Carlson also found one DHA formula that hindered premature babies' physical growth. The fish-oil supplement she used contained both DHA and a related fat that appeared to be the problem. So Carlson repeated her experiment with less of the bad fat and more DHA. This time, she will tell an FDA hearing next month, the supplemented babies were less than a pound smaller than the regular-fed ones. That small effect ``could be considered an acceptable tradeoff for the higher ... (visual) acuity and enhanced maturation of neural development,'' Carlson wrote. Even if using pure DHA is the answer, DHA levels in breast milk differ greatly from mother to mother, leaving scientists unsure how much formula would need. Indeed, adult Americans' average DHA levels have dropped in the last 40 years because of changing diets. Yet there is no sign younger generations are less intelligent or have poorer vision, Heird said. He says healthy babies don't need DHA, but advises the FDA to await larger studies of premature babies before deciding on their formula needs. ``No one's claiming this stuff makes brilliant babies,'' said University of Pittsburgh child-development director Robert McCall. ``If it does anything, it prevents relative ... disadvantages in premature babies.''