Obviously the fed is so deeply in bed with the corn faction that they enjoy total immunity. Are ruining cars with corn liquor and babies with corn syrup.
All over the world, goat milk is the universal milk replacer, and for good reason. It's highly digestible and extremely nutritious. Formula? Not needed if you have access to goat milk.
I know I'm naive about this (being male), but why isn't breast feeding simply encouraged more by HHS?
Also, if FDA itself at some point questioned not having the amount of sugar declared on the label, we know it's the industry associations having back channel dialogue with bureaucrats and appointees that's creating the sloth.
Read this as I ate organic chocolate ice cream with added heavy cream from our Jerseys 😉
Gotta add in here: why the heck not help the US dairy sector and use actual dehydrated milk and add lactose (milk's own sugar)!!Time to go move the herd.
There's no money to be made from breastfeeding. No product to sell, no bottles to sterilize, no warming devices. Breastfeeding doesn't create the habit of buying babies' food in a store, where moms will continue to shop rather than make food at home. And most importantly, formula pushes the message that the corporation knows best. Breastfeeding is too empowering - can't have that.
seeing what i have seen, i can't ignore that it might be that simple, a cult of death willing to send dangerous abortion drugs to anyone and impede us all with the harmful RFR of their control network.
Bottom line issue: It is a monopoly shared with Abbott and Med Johnson dominating and Gerber having less than 10% of the market share. Hospitals are locked into contracts where the cost of formula is very little or zip. The parents of the infant pays the cost or the US government through WICK. Abbott reduced US production to one plant for economy of scale and did not do maintenance and the FDA shut them down due to contamination with pathogens. Then Abbott had a similar problem with their preemie formula and had to pay out millions because of preemie deaths. Here is their complete preemie formula.
The mainstream framing (FDA/NIH/CDC joint statement, the Journal of Perinatology piece) is: "no conclusive evidence formula causes NEC; human milk is protective."
But that framing lets the ingredients off the hook without actually testing them. Look at what the independent literature shows:
Preterm piglet model: NEC incidence was 14% on lactose-based formula vs. 44–50% on corn syrup solids formula — a threefold difference, with the only variable being the carbohydrate.
Frontiers in Nutrition (2026) review: glucose polymers (corn syrup solids/maltodextrin) that replace 50–60% of the lactose in preterm formulas act as a pathogenic agent, damaging the immature gut via multiple mechanisms.
Dose-response: in animal models, as little as 15% glucose polymers raises NEC risk, climbing to maximal risk at 50%+.
Clinical study: NEC developed in 5 of 49 (10%) ELGAN fed low-lactose/high-glucose-polymer formula vs. 0 of 50 fed high-lactose — a result that would be a scandal in any other context.
The whole NEC fight has been litigated as "formula vs. breast milk." That's a framing that protects the product. The sharper question is what's in the formula — and the ingredient that keeps showing up in the harm signal is the cheapest one to swap in: corn syrup solids, standing in for the lactose that breast milk actually contains. Add carrageenan (an emulsifier with its own gut-inflammation literature) and you've got a product engineered around cost and shelf life, not infant gut biology. UIC GI physician has petitioned the FDA almost 20 times that carrageenan should not be on the GRAS list. It is in all the cheap brands of Ice cream which I will not buy!
Abbott never admitted causation. But when 2,000 claims get settled for $670M and the animal data show a threefold NEC difference from a single carbohydrate swap, "no conclusive evidence" starts looking less like a scientific conclusion and more like a legal position.
NIH has to demand prenatal care be revamped and not depend of artificial breast milk. If prenatal care was vastly improved, PPD, preemies, preëclampsia, need for vaccines would all disappear. Newborns would arrive healthy and full term. Know families had to deal with all 4 of the medical conditions mentioned including the death from SIDS and PPD via a 45. My view.
There is another infant formula issue that is very contentious. The ideal food for infants 0-6 months of age is breast milk, very low in fluoride. Expensive ready to feed infant formula is very low in fluoride. But cheaper powdered infant formula combined with fluoridated tap water gives an infant a huge dose of fluoride in terms of body weight. This is a fluorosis risk, with no benefit. But fluoridation advocates in public health and organized dentistry do not want this to become widely known. They fear the proper advice, to consider using non-fluoridated water for babies, could cause fear and doubt about water fluoridation in general. And they want people to drink fluoridated water and not vote fluoridation down in referendums.
The proper advice became public 20 years ago when both the American Dental Association and the CDC put out statements advising parents to consider using low or non-fluoridated water to prepare infant formula. But since then they have not proposed any effective method to inform pediatricians or parents about this risk.
When you add to this the accumulating evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin to unborn babies and young children, there is an even more compelling reason to not suppress the proper advice about this fluorosis risk. Ask your AI this question: is fluoride a developmental neurotoxin? The answer helps explain why 2 states have banned fluoridation.
So we have a situation where the American Dental Association and its allies do not want their own advice about this risk to become well known to parents. The public perception of water fluoridation is more important to them than doing what is best for infants. But they will never admit they have ignored and suppressed this advice as much as they could, as that would look bad.
In terms of labeling, the infant formula manufacturers don't want this risk advisory on their products. They fear parents will look for other nearly identical competing products without the advisory. The infant formula companies in the 1970's stopped using fluoridated water in their products and keep the fluoride level as low as possible.
Thank you for your this interesting and thoughtful comment. Yes this is so important. I wasn't aware that the formula companies have removed fluoride from their unconstituted powder. If you would like to donate to help parents understand the risks of formula please support the Substack or go to: www.thebreastfeedingfoundation.org
Another shocking fact I must thank you for revealing. Is it any wonder why public became LESS healthy/ more obese? I never once purchased or fed formula to my 3 children ~40 yrs ago. Purchased less than dozen jars of baby food ever. He didn't really like it; just pureed a short while, then suitable 'table food.' REAL food.
A social worker friend years ago told me of a study done putting toddlers in a room with the four basic food groups (meat, dairy, vegetables and fruit)-that over a three day period they would eat some of each group… A balanced diet. But… if they added sugar to the mix they did not eat a balanced diet – they went for the sugar. It is absolutely criminal what they are doing.
I read a report a while back about how Western developed countries had major tooth and jaw problems because of how we feed out babies. Instead of getting soft foods, they should be getting hard foods that stimulate chewing and further bone development. Here's but one article of the many listed on this topic: https://bickiepegs.com/blogs/news/why-babies-should-chew-on-hard-foods-even-before-teeth-arrive.
This absolutely needs to change. Corn syrup has no place in baby formula. Why are the types and amounts of sugar exempt from the label? My guess is big Food got to them. Thanks for reporting. I hope this message gets to the powers that be!!
Information such as this drives me NUTZ but I sure wish more women AND MEN realized that those things hanging on a woman's chest are NOT TOYS -- they are FOR FEEDING/NOURISHING THEIR BABIES -- DUH! Size has nothing to do with breastfeeding ability. Additionally -- breastfeeding shapes the infants facial and scalp muscles and LOTS MORE. PLEASE CONSIDER BREASTFEEDING. My son cried when a "former" wife refused to breastfeed. He remembered and he knew the benefits.
Because the sugar industry is just as much an organized crime family as the oil, pharma, agro, or war industry. They don't care one bit about their customers' health because they are Godless.
This is shocking, and makes a strong argument for breast feeding, or, if that's not possible, buying European baby formula. The FDA should be ensuring our little ones get the best start in life, nutritionally, but I'm sure they won't without being forced. Excellent post, Dr. Malone!
European Formulas Often Use:
Lactose as the primary carbohydrate (mirroring breast milk)
Organic skim milk or whey as the protein base
Vegetable oils without palm oil (in many brands)
Algal-sourced DHA (required)
No added sugars or artificial preservatives
U.S. Formulas May Contain:
Corn syrup solids, glucose syrup, or maltodextrin
Soy or dairy proteins, often not organic
Use of palm oil more common
Voluntary DHA/ARA inclusion
Synthetic nutrients or preservatives in some formulations
While not all U.S. formulas use these less desirable ingredients, they are permitted — making it harder for parents to distinguish truly clean-label options without extensive research.
The #1 job of Government is to PROTECT it's citizens. Time after time they are failing to do this and here we find THE MOST vulnerable among us, infants and babies are NOT being protected. It's DESPICABLE.
Obviously the fed is so deeply in bed with the corn faction that they enjoy total immunity. Are ruining cars with corn liquor and babies with corn syrup.
Unbelievable! There’s absolutely no reason to leave off sugar content on baby formula unless there’s something to hide!
And some someones to hide it for.
Of course there's something to hide: corn syrup, brought to you by glyphosate laced, genetically engineered corn.
As if we need more evidence that breast is best!
💯
For SO many reasons . . .
If a mother can’t breastfeed, the Weston Price Foundation provides recipes for homemade formula: https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/formula-homemade-baby-formula/
All over the world, goat milk is the universal milk replacer, and for good reason. It's highly digestible and extremely nutritious. Formula? Not needed if you have access to goat milk.
So few women physically can’t breastfeed and for those women we need banked milk. Formula will be phased out in the future.
Maddening! Radical transparency my arse
I know I'm naive about this (being male), but why isn't breast feeding simply encouraged more by HHS?
Also, if FDA itself at some point questioned not having the amount of sugar declared on the label, we know it's the industry associations having back channel dialogue with bureaucrats and appointees that's creating the sloth.
Read this as I ate organic chocolate ice cream with added heavy cream from our Jerseys 😉
Gotta add in here: why the heck not help the US dairy sector and use actual dehydrated milk and add lactose (milk's own sugar)!!Time to go move the herd.
There's no money to be made from breastfeeding. No product to sell, no bottles to sterilize, no warming devices. Breastfeeding doesn't create the habit of buying babies' food in a store, where moms will continue to shop rather than make food at home. And most importantly, formula pushes the message that the corporation knows best. Breastfeeding is too empowering - can't have that.
What’s the very best for infants is human breast milk. As a mother, I never considered anything else.
You're an INTELLIGENT GOOD MOTHER -- The world needs more like you.
My daughter-in-law had twins and couldn't keep up so she had to supplement with formula. There are terrible...
You have to recognize the plan before it makes any sense.
Kill off the oldies, abort the babies and poison those who survive.
Then the children that live through childhood you can confuse their identities so they won't make any more.
And never apologize, even when the plan becomes obvious.
seeing what i have seen, i can't ignore that it might be that simple, a cult of death willing to send dangerous abortion drugs to anyone and impede us all with the harmful RFR of their control network.
As Ben Franklin famously said, „Of what use is a new-born baby?”
He did not say, “None! As a matter of fact they are useless eaters!”
A grim look, but I can't say I disagree. I wish I could.
Bottom line issue: It is a monopoly shared with Abbott and Med Johnson dominating and Gerber having less than 10% of the market share. Hospitals are locked into contracts where the cost of formula is very little or zip. The parents of the infant pays the cost or the US government through WICK. Abbott reduced US production to one plant for economy of scale and did not do maintenance and the FDA shut them down due to contamination with pathogens. Then Abbott had a similar problem with their preemie formula and had to pay out millions because of preemie deaths. Here is their complete preemie formula.
Similac Special Care 24 (Abbott, US version)
Base (in order):
Water
Nonfat Milk
Corn Syrup Solids
Medium Chain Triglycerides (MCT oil)
Lactose
Whey Protein Concentrate
Soy Oil
Coconut Oil
Less than 0.5% of:
Schizochytrium sp. Oil (DHA source)
M. Alpina Oil (ARA source)
Beta-Carotene, Lutein
Calcium Phosphate, Ascorbic Acid, Potassium Citrate, Calcium Carbonate
Soy Lecithin, Monoglycerides
Magnesium Chloride, Inositol, Sodium Citrate
Carrageenan
Potassium Hydroxide, Ferrous Sulfate, Choline Bitartrate, Taurine
Choline Chloride, Niacinamide, L-Carnitine, Zinc Sulfate
Potassium Chloride, Salt, Potassium Phosphate
d-Alpha-Tocopheryl Acetate, Calcium Pantothenate, Vitamin A Palmitate
Copper Sulfate, Riboflavin, Thiamine HCl, Pyridoxine HCl, Folic Acid
Manganese Sulfate, Biotin, Potassium Iodide, Phylloquinone
Sodium Selenate, Vitamin D3, Vitamin B12
Nucleotides (CMP, GMP, UMP, AMP)
Allergens: Milk, Soy
The mainstream framing (FDA/NIH/CDC joint statement, the Journal of Perinatology piece) is: "no conclusive evidence formula causes NEC; human milk is protective."
But that framing lets the ingredients off the hook without actually testing them. Look at what the independent literature shows:
Preterm piglet model: NEC incidence was 14% on lactose-based formula vs. 44–50% on corn syrup solids formula — a threefold difference, with the only variable being the carbohydrate.
Frontiers in Nutrition (2026) review: glucose polymers (corn syrup solids/maltodextrin) that replace 50–60% of the lactose in preterm formulas act as a pathogenic agent, damaging the immature gut via multiple mechanisms.
Dose-response: in animal models, as little as 15% glucose polymers raises NEC risk, climbing to maximal risk at 50%+.
Clinical study: NEC developed in 5 of 49 (10%) ELGAN fed low-lactose/high-glucose-polymer formula vs. 0 of 50 fed high-lactose — a result that would be a scandal in any other context.
The whole NEC fight has been litigated as "formula vs. breast milk." That's a framing that protects the product. The sharper question is what's in the formula — and the ingredient that keeps showing up in the harm signal is the cheapest one to swap in: corn syrup solids, standing in for the lactose that breast milk actually contains. Add carrageenan (an emulsifier with its own gut-inflammation literature) and you've got a product engineered around cost and shelf life, not infant gut biology. UIC GI physician has petitioned the FDA almost 20 times that carrageenan should not be on the GRAS list. It is in all the cheap brands of Ice cream which I will not buy!
Abbott never admitted causation. But when 2,000 claims get settled for $670M and the animal data show a threefold NEC difference from a single carbohydrate swap, "no conclusive evidence" starts looking less like a scientific conclusion and more like a legal position.
NIH has to demand prenatal care be revamped and not depend of artificial breast milk. If prenatal care was vastly improved, PPD, preemies, preëclampsia, need for vaccines would all disappear. Newborns would arrive healthy and full term. Know families had to deal with all 4 of the medical conditions mentioned including the death from SIDS and PPD via a 45. My view.
There is another infant formula issue that is very contentious. The ideal food for infants 0-6 months of age is breast milk, very low in fluoride. Expensive ready to feed infant formula is very low in fluoride. But cheaper powdered infant formula combined with fluoridated tap water gives an infant a huge dose of fluoride in terms of body weight. This is a fluorosis risk, with no benefit. But fluoridation advocates in public health and organized dentistry do not want this to become widely known. They fear the proper advice, to consider using non-fluoridated water for babies, could cause fear and doubt about water fluoridation in general. And they want people to drink fluoridated water and not vote fluoridation down in referendums.
The proper advice became public 20 years ago when both the American Dental Association and the CDC put out statements advising parents to consider using low or non-fluoridated water to prepare infant formula. But since then they have not proposed any effective method to inform pediatricians or parents about this risk.
When you add to this the accumulating evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin to unborn babies and young children, there is an even more compelling reason to not suppress the proper advice about this fluorosis risk. Ask your AI this question: is fluoride a developmental neurotoxin? The answer helps explain why 2 states have banned fluoridation.
So we have a situation where the American Dental Association and its allies do not want their own advice about this risk to become well known to parents. The public perception of water fluoridation is more important to them than doing what is best for infants. But they will never admit they have ignored and suppressed this advice as much as they could, as that would look bad.
In terms of labeling, the infant formula manufacturers don't want this risk advisory on their products. They fear parents will look for other nearly identical competing products without the advisory. The infant formula companies in the 1970's stopped using fluoridated water in their products and keep the fluoride level as low as possible.
Thank you for your this interesting and thoughtful comment. Yes this is so important. I wasn't aware that the formula companies have removed fluoride from their unconstituted powder. If you would like to donate to help parents understand the risks of formula please support the Substack or go to: www.thebreastfeedingfoundation.org
Here's the dietary guidelines suggestions:
https://thebreastfeedingfoundation.substack.com/p/us-dietary-guidelines-suggested-revisions
Yes! The Foundation suggested revised dietary guidelines for formula and fluoride consumption.
But where are the suggested revised dietary guidelines? I don't see them on your website. You could post them here.
Another shocking fact I must thank you for revealing. Is it any wonder why public became LESS healthy/ more obese? I never once purchased or fed formula to my 3 children ~40 yrs ago. Purchased less than dozen jars of baby food ever. He didn't really like it; just pureed a short while, then suitable 'table food.' REAL food.
A social worker friend years ago told me of a study done putting toddlers in a room with the four basic food groups (meat, dairy, vegetables and fruit)-that over a three day period they would eat some of each group… A balanced diet. But… if they added sugar to the mix they did not eat a balanced diet – they went for the sugar. It is absolutely criminal what they are doing.
I read a report a while back about how Western developed countries had major tooth and jaw problems because of how we feed out babies. Instead of getting soft foods, they should be getting hard foods that stimulate chewing and further bone development. Here's but one article of the many listed on this topic: https://bickiepegs.com/blogs/news/why-babies-should-chew-on-hard-foods-even-before-teeth-arrive.
This absolutely needs to change. Corn syrup has no place in baby formula. Why are the types and amounts of sugar exempt from the label? My guess is big Food got to them. Thanks for reporting. I hope this message gets to the powers that be!!
Information such as this drives me NUTZ but I sure wish more women AND MEN realized that those things hanging on a woman's chest are NOT TOYS -- they are FOR FEEDING/NOURISHING THEIR BABIES -- DUH! Size has nothing to do with breastfeeding ability. Additionally -- breastfeeding shapes the infants facial and scalp muscles and LOTS MORE. PLEASE CONSIDER BREASTFEEDING. My son cried when a "former" wife refused to breastfeed. He remembered and he knew the benefits.
Right on, sister! 🤩
Because the sugar industry is just as much an organized crime family as the oil, pharma, agro, or war industry. They don't care one bit about their customers' health because they are Godless.
This is shocking, and makes a strong argument for breast feeding, or, if that's not possible, buying European baby formula. The FDA should be ensuring our little ones get the best start in life, nutritionally, but I'm sure they won't without being forced. Excellent post, Dr. Malone!
European Formulas Often Use:
Lactose as the primary carbohydrate (mirroring breast milk)
Organic skim milk or whey as the protein base
Vegetable oils without palm oil (in many brands)
Algal-sourced DHA (required)
No added sugars or artificial preservatives
U.S. Formulas May Contain:
Corn syrup solids, glucose syrup, or maltodextrin
Soy or dairy proteins, often not organic
Use of palm oil more common
Voluntary DHA/ARA inclusion
Synthetic nutrients or preservatives in some formulations
While not all U.S. formulas use these less desirable ingredients, they are permitted — making it harder for parents to distinguish truly clean-label options without extensive research.
The #1 job of Government is to PROTECT it's citizens. Time after time they are failing to do this and here we find THE MOST vulnerable among us, infants and babies are NOT being protected. It's DESPICABLE.