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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
just like EPA, FDA is captured by industry, beholden to money over their health protection mandate. "protective principle" does not hide behind bureaucracy. when EPA or FDA WANT to regulate, like the gross and irresponsible over-regulation of PFAS chemicals (done to control water), or the gross under-regulation of neuro-toxic fluoride (which makes us all more compliant... and dumber) they can do it quickly (and destructively, ignoring fiscal constraints, health of at-risk populations, and even violating health rights!). EPA pulled the same delaying tactic over the fluoride TSCA suit, choosing to protect their regulatory turf rather than the health of Americans being poisoned daily.
My doctor told me to use corn syrup and canned evaporated milk for my newborn. I was planning on nursing, but had dry-up pills pushed on me in the hospital....I asked the nurse what they were? She thrust them at me and yelled, "Take them!" She scared me and I swallowed them.I cried for three days, when I found out I couldn't nurse. I had to go to a pediatrician to find out what else to feed the infant. The formula the doctor recommended was so deficient that the child cried for three months...He was being starved to death. I knew nothing about nutrition. All these formulas that are marketed, are not the same as mother's milk. An Industry does not know what infants need...our Creator made Mother's milk. My first child was very sickly. I nursed my other three...and they were healthy.
Sugar is addictive! There is your reason. There are other natural sweeteners the manufacturers could use. Both of my daughter’s nursed their babies until they were a year old. Or close to it. We tried freeze drying my youngest daughter’s breast milk. It worked like a charm. Just add water. She thought that when she has another baby she will do a lot of pumping to freeze dry her milk.
I was not a good nurser. I had a ton of milk but my babies were terrible nurses and I would get mastitis. Terribly painful. My second baby nursed really well. She I nursed him. I think if a mother can nurse that is definitely a good choice to make. With baby formula you don’t know what you are getting.
"The FDA does not require infant-formula manufacturers to list sugar on their ingredients label, or tell parents how many grams of sugar are in their products."
I am too big to care about that.
Lately I have been smoking dragons blood off cinnamon sticks.
I looked over the list and was quite relieved that several boards had dodged the bullet this time.
What has become the rule is if you are in a pinch for money, soak the cinnamon in a lead solution to make the cinnamon weigh a lot more when dried out. This means you can charge more money for your cinnamon because the buyer thinks he is getting cinnamon, not cinnamon laced with lead.
I took a nap instead of going all Beekeeper - you know? Culling a certain lead poisoning faction of board members approving that kind of behavior, just to save the few innovative people smoking it?
When I was seventeen I lied on summer break from University, and became a miner in a lead mine, in Leadville, Colorado. I recall after a blast having to stop because I could not find the tracks, my headlight not shining to my hands. Once my Supervisor magically appeared out of the smoky universe, saw me puffing a cigarette and declared me crazy.
While I am too big to care about Stork Speed, I might not have outgrown it yet...
This makes what my mom gave us in a bottle--condensed milk, water and corn syrup--actually more transparent and not much worse compared to today's American formulas.
Maddening! Radical transparency my arse
Unbelievable! There’s absolutely no reason to leave off sugar content on baby formula unless there’s something to hide!
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.
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 if we need more evidence that breast is best!
💯
What’s the very best for infants is human breast milk. As a mother, I never considered anything else.
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.
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.
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.
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.
just like EPA, FDA is captured by industry, beholden to money over their health protection mandate. "protective principle" does not hide behind bureaucracy. when EPA or FDA WANT to regulate, like the gross and irresponsible over-regulation of PFAS chemicals (done to control water), or the gross under-regulation of neuro-toxic fluoride (which makes us all more compliant... and dumber) they can do it quickly (and destructively, ignoring fiscal constraints, health of at-risk populations, and even violating health rights!). EPA pulled the same delaying tactic over the fluoride TSCA suit, choosing to protect their regulatory turf rather than the health of Americans being poisoned daily.
but the manufacturers CAN list the sugar content. as consumers we can choose to NOT BUY FORMULA UNLESS MARKED.
Crooks! Disgusting! Where are you, RFK???!!!!
My doctor told me to use corn syrup and canned evaporated milk for my newborn. I was planning on nursing, but had dry-up pills pushed on me in the hospital....I asked the nurse what they were? She thrust them at me and yelled, "Take them!" She scared me and I swallowed them.I cried for three days, when I found out I couldn't nurse. I had to go to a pediatrician to find out what else to feed the infant. The formula the doctor recommended was so deficient that the child cried for three months...He was being starved to death. I knew nothing about nutrition. All these formulas that are marketed, are not the same as mother's milk. An Industry does not know what infants need...our Creator made Mother's milk. My first child was very sickly. I nursed my other three...and they were healthy.
Sugar is addictive! There is your reason. There are other natural sweeteners the manufacturers could use. Both of my daughter’s nursed their babies until they were a year old. Or close to it. We tried freeze drying my youngest daughter’s breast milk. It worked like a charm. Just add water. She thought that when she has another baby she will do a lot of pumping to freeze dry her milk.
I was not a good nurser. I had a ton of milk but my babies were terrible nurses and I would get mastitis. Terribly painful. My second baby nursed really well. She I nursed him. I think if a mother can nurse that is definitely a good choice to make. With baby formula you don’t know what you are getting.
"The FDA does not require infant-formula manufacturers to list sugar on their ingredients label, or tell parents how many grams of sugar are in their products."
I am too big to care about that.
Lately I have been smoking dragons blood off cinnamon sticks.
This morning I heard a common brand is loaded with lead heavy metal! That bothered me how the FDA keeps track, sampling - https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-safety-information/more-ground-cinnamon-products-added-fda-public-health-alert-due-presence-elevated-levels-lead - and it was the reason they do that bothers me.
I looked over the list and was quite relieved that several boards had dodged the bullet this time.
What has become the rule is if you are in a pinch for money, soak the cinnamon in a lead solution to make the cinnamon weigh a lot more when dried out. This means you can charge more money for your cinnamon because the buyer thinks he is getting cinnamon, not cinnamon laced with lead.
I took a nap instead of going all Beekeeper - you know? Culling a certain lead poisoning faction of board members approving that kind of behavior, just to save the few innovative people smoking it?
When I was seventeen I lied on summer break from University, and became a miner in a lead mine, in Leadville, Colorado. I recall after a blast having to stop because I could not find the tracks, my headlight not shining to my hands. Once my Supervisor magically appeared out of the smoky universe, saw me puffing a cigarette and declared me crazy.
While I am too big to care about Stork Speed, I might not have outgrown it yet...
This makes what my mom gave us in a bottle--condensed milk, water and corn syrup--actually more transparent and not much worse compared to today's American formulas.