The secret formula

We're weaning our youngest, an event, or rather series of events, I welcome, for though it now adds feeding duties to my roster it also means I get my wife back.  Well, it's a step in the right direction, anyway.

It also means it's time for research.  I don't recall how deeply we delved into the question of which baby formula to use for FM, but at the time we were living in the Netherlands, and I have a lot more respect for European food safety laws than I do for American ones (we're only just now updating ours--keep your fingers crossed--having apparently been happy to let industry find new ways of poisoning us in the pursuit of profits since the last regulatory clawback in 1938) so I think we probably did without an exhaustive review back then.  And, too, I'm sure whatever we used there we can't get here.  So, GM, what will it be?

[READER ALERT:  The rest of this post is probably pretty boring (but check the photo of The Gid at the bottom regardless) unless you're trying to make the same decision we are.  Even then it's probably pretty boring, but may save you doing even more boring research yourself.  The bottom line is, it's tough to know what you're eating.  It's tough to know what your kid's eating.  It shouldn't be.]

The general points of concern to my mind are:

1. Source of the ingredients:  Obviously not interested in having foreign, and in particular Chinese-supplied, ingredients if avoidable.  (Perhaps not so obvious if you missed the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, and if you did miss it then I recommend staying innocent, it was a particularly nauseating example of its kind.)  FDA review of foreign-sourced ingredients is even more scanty than that of domestically-sourced ones.  As of 2008, all US companies manufacturing baby formula in the US claimed that they were not using Chinese-sourced ingredients.  I don't believe that was true then--none of the ingredients or precursors came from China, when China is the source of XX?--and it is even less likely to be true now.
2. Sugar:  Don't want an unnecessarily sweet formula.  The EU--ahead of the curve again--has banned sucrose as an ingredient in formula due to associations with childhood obesity.  (Only a true cynic would not be surprised to learn that the EU is more activist on this particular point than we are.)  Probably a good idea.
3. DHA & ARA:  These additives, which are in most cases produced using a petroleum-based solvent, are being pushed as the latest booster for infant development.  As best I can tell, the jury is still out, and frankly I'd rather not have GM be on the test line for this:  history shows that these sorts of enthusiasms are not infrequently regretted.
4. Complexity:  Even more than usual I want to be able to understand the ingredients list.
5. Buyer beware:  FDA review in this area is weak, relying as it does on manufacturer-provided "assurances" as to nutritional quality, and mandates no review of manufacturing processes aside from an annual walk-through.  (Having worked in big companies and been on both sides of a variety of audits, I can tell you an annual walk-through is not enough.)
   

Point three eliminates every organic formula except for Baby's Only.  If only it were that simple:  we have a very tempting offer from an insider for half-price Similac.  Given the amount of this stuff GM already consumes this is very tempting indeed.  So it looks like we'll have to compare ingredients after all.  Apologies, but....

Here are the bulk ingredients, Similac vs. Baby's Only:

Organic Nonfat Milk, Organic Maltodextrin, Organic Sugar (Sucrose), Organic High Oleic Sunflower Oil, Organic Soy Oil, Organic Coconut Oil

Organic Brown Rice Syrup, Organic Non-Fat Dry Milk, Organic High Oleic Sunflower Oil, Organic Soybean Oil, Organic Coconut Oil

Note that Similac uses two sweeteners (one of which is the banned sucrose; for more on that see this article), but that Baby's Only's sweetener is listed as its first ingredient:  which is sweeter, or more likely to make GM even fatter than he already is?  Resort to nutritional comparison can only tell us that they are equivalent from caloric and carb points of view.

The rest of the ingredients are, Similac vs. Baby's Only:

Less than 2% of the Following: C. Cohnii Oil^*, M. Alpina Oil^†, Potassium Citrate, Calcium Carbonate, Ascorbic Acid, Soy Lecithin, Ascorbyl Palmitate, Ferrous Sulfate, Sodium Chloride, Choline Chloride, Choline Bitartrate, Taurine, m-Inositol, Magnesium Chloride, Zinc Sulfate, Mixed Tocopherols, d-Alpha-Tocopheryl Acetate, Niacinamide, Calcium Pantothenate, L-Carnitine, Vitamin A Palmitate, Cupric Sulfate, Thiamine Chloride Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Folic Acid, Manganese Sulfate, Phylloquinone, Biotin, Beta-Carotene, Sodium Selenate, Vitamin D3, Cyanocobalamin, Potassium Iodide, Potassium Hydroxide, and Nucleotides (Cytidine 5’-Monophosphate, Disodium Guanosine 5’-Monophosphate, Disodium Uridine 5’-Monophosphate, Adenosine 5’-Monophosphate).

Calcium Phosphate, Calcium Ascorbate (Vit. C), Organic Soy Lecithin, Calcium Citrate, Choline Bitartrate, Organic Vanilla, Taurine, Ferrous Sulfate, Inositol, Natural Vitamin E Acetate, Zinc Sulfate, Niacinamide, Vitamin A Palmitate, Calcium Pantothenate, Thiamin Hydrochloride (Vit. B1), Copper Sulfate, Riboflavin (Vit. B2), Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vit. B6), Folic Acid, Phylloquinone (Vit. K1), Potassium Iodide, Sodium Selenate, Biotin, Vitamin D3, Cyanocobalamin (Vit. B12).

Italicized ingredients are those they share, and even without picking them out it's obvious that Similac has a bunch of stuff Baby's Only does not, which means the latter does better in terms of simplicity.  This is important:  each ingredient offers an opportunity for someone to cut some corners, another chance, in sourcing, in handling, in production, for things to go wrong.

I don't wish to sound paranoid (though I know I do), but given that this will represent the majority of GM's input for the next six months or more, doesn't excessive caution seem about right?

*******

ADDENDUM, @ August 2011: