Mothering › Forums › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › NY Times article - organic formula
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NY Times article - organic formula  

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
post #2 of 19
Interesting article. Makes me so sad for children who are not breastfed. I also found it very strange that there was no mention of breastfeeding being the biological norm.
post #3 of 19
I wonder how the sweetness of breast milk compares to the formula.
post #4 of 19
Ick. I would not want the "taste the formula" job.
post #5 of 19
I was just about to post this too. Why don't they just breastfeed? I think you need to change the text to a link in order to follow the UA, though, since it is copyrighted material.
post #6 of 19
Saw that too. I've always heard that breastmilk is much sweeter than formula, though I've never tasted formula. So, I wonder how they would compare. But breastmilk's primary sugar is lactose, not sucrose, and I would think the goal would be to approximate breastmilk as much as possible.
post #7 of 19
I'm having a very hard time digesting the controversy here- sucrose in formula is a problem but high fructose corn syrup is just fine and dandy? I noticed how they mentioned "sucrose has been disapearing from infant formulas over time" but they didn't mention the reason for this- my guess is the relative cheapness of corn syrup during this time period.

Formula is a highly processed food. Necessary for infants who can't get human milk, or who can't get enough human milk for optimal growth, but it's still far from being "ideal".

I hate the tone of the article and the way it's started- by a "yoga mom" "giving organic formula as soon as DC was born"- and the implication of formula being the normal way to feed babies. Most "yoga moms" I know would do all they could to BF, unless there were medical reasons to supplement or not BF at all. The author could have easily written the same information but with a "BF is normal" kind of slant, with an "if you need to use formula, watch out for this" attitude.
post #8 of 19
My mistake - corn syrup is in some milk-based formulas, but not high-fructose.
post #9 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthla View Post
I'm having a very hard time digesting the controversy here- sucrose in formula is a problem but high fructose corn syrup is just fine and dandy? I noticed how they mentioned "sucrose has been disapearing from infant formulas over time" but they didn't mention the reason for this- my guess is the relative cheapness of corn syrup during this time period.

Formula is a highly processed food. Necessary for infants who can't get human milk, or who can't get enough human milk for optimal growth, but it's still far from being "ideal".

I hate the tone of the article and the way it's started- by a "yoga mom" "giving organic formula as soon as DC was born"- and the implication of formula being the normal way to feed babies. Most "yoga moms" I know would do all they could to BF, unless there were medical reasons to supplement or not BF at all. The author could have easily written the same information but with a "BF is normal" kind of slant, with an "if you need to use formula, watch out for this" attitude.
:
Well said.
post #10 of 19
Really . Sounds like "yoga" mom did not even try to bf. Why are they so afraid to say nothing will ever compare to bm. It is impossible to recreate something that is already perfect. I have learned as a mama just because people are going "organic" does not imply they will feed their babies the one and only milk they should be fed.
post #11 of 19
I'm going to give the "yoga mom" the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she either had a valid medical reason to FF (including the possibility of needing to supplement), or that she was misquoted. My annoyance rests entirely with the author of the article, not one mom's personal choices.

It doesn't take too many more words to say "for those moms who need to use formula" or "if you buy formula" instead of "when you buy formula".
post #12 of 19
The only logical statement in the whole article is the last quote, but his point-because it wasn't clarified by the author, will be lost on most readers. "Organic" has become a fad, something people aspire to be closer to without holding the real value close.
post #13 of 19
I babysat for a friend who FF and just to be curious I tasted the formula (had to rinse my mouth out..YUCK!) and then I tasted my milk (could have gone back for seconds..haha) No way do they taste the same.
post #14 of 19
that formula got terrible reviews on amazon.com. constipation city.
post #15 of 19
Blech. I am so tired of green washing. Sure organic formula is better than regular but it's still an inferior product! Makes me wonder how much ad money the NYT is getting from the pharma/formula industry.
post #16 of 19
Did you see how many times the article quotes the full name of the product "Similac Organic Formula" - The first half of the article sounded like an advertisement to me, not a news article.
post #17 of 19
To me organic formula seems almost pointless. If you are truly worried about the health of your baby and leading a sustainable life, you would breastfeed.
post #18 of 19
The ONLY organic way to feed a baby is to BREASTFEED! Period.
post #19 of 19
True.


Just to mention -my first baby was FF. I tasted it once. It is nasty. Tastes kind of like metal. Yum. I tasted BM a couple of times and it tastes like melted vanilla ice cream.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Lactivism
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › NY Times article - organic formula