Talk:Infant formula

message: This is rather lengthy article, yet the core information is missing: what is in baby formula?
Need an expert in the field to contribute.
Historical development section very vaguely touched on the topic. Nutritional content section jumps directly to substance/element level, but provides no indication from what/which ingredient it is attended.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okigan (talk • contribs) 04:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Core information is missing

message: In saying Nestle is the largest producer of formula in the world, does the article mean "largest company that produces formula" or "company that produces the largest amount of formula"? Mr. Jones 12:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 1

message: I fulheartedly support breastmilk over formula whenever possible.  However, this article written from a biased point of view.  I have neutralized some language.  27 Oct 2005. -- IP: 69.95.168.98
: I left your edit about "perceived" unethical marketing, but I deleted your softening of language about the negative health consequences of formula, and inserted references to support the scientific findings. Even when mothers are not able to breastfeed, it's important to be honest about the potential negative consequences of formula. Mamawrites  & listens 10:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a working scientist.  I should note that my daughter gets breast milk.  However, you really need to understand that cherry-picker citation of "the scientific findings" as is used in this article is bad citation practice, borders on violating scientific ethics (it would, for example, if used to obtain IRB approval for a new study), and is seriously POV.  It's just wrong to cite a single three-author article, and not even one that's heavily cited elsewhere, as evidence that "Many scientists believe _X_" -- no matter how fervently you personally happen to believe _X_.  Similarly, pretty much nothing is "well established" if you have to cite a commentary article from a nursing review as your proof that it's true; and elsewhere in this article there are numerous similar problems, for example the use of weasel words like "studies have shown that X is associated with Y" when the abstract for the single article cited highlights that more proof is required to demonstrate a causal relationship between X and Y.  Boo hiss.  Try to cite the science in a balanced way, or don't cite it at all, and don't make the claims you need it to support. Tls (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 2

message: I'm amazed that this article makes no mention of HIV - one of the most notable reasons for formula feeding (where avoidance of breastfeeding is acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe). It's a rather glaring omission. Trezatium 19:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes.  dpotter 03:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone interested in correcting this omission could start by reading this WHO report and this from the CDC. Trezatium 13:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a quick change, but I think that much more discussion is needed of all the reasons for not breastfeeding. Any volunteers? Trezatium 14:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of [[HIV]]? 

message: Why are there two History sections? Trezatium 15:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeing double 

message: I've created this new section but it needs a lot more content. Trezatium 15:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for formula feeding 

message: I've removed the older History section, which did not cite any sources, was mostly duplication (and in some respects contradiction) to the newer, larger, well-referenced history section.  No personal axe to grind here:  I've included the older section below, and we can certainly work the content back in if anyone feels the urge.  Some citations would be nice, though.
:For centuries, attempts to create a breast milk substitute resulted in high infant mortality.  The first formula to significantly lower the artificial feeding death rate was developed by Henri Nestlé in the 1860s in response to the high mortality rate among infants in Switzerland in foundling homes (orphanages). It was a combination of cow's milk and cereals and was called Farine Lactee.  Although the mortality and morbidity (illness) rates remained much higher in infants who did not receive breast milk, infant formula became increasingly popular during the 20th century as advertising entered its golden age. The medical community supported the use of infant formula because it was promoted as being more "scientific"--more easily measured and the nutrient content of the milk supposedly ensured. The medical community, as part of the larger culture, was subject to the same influences and trends then popular.
:The post World War II "baby boom" provided a market for the expanding infant formula industry. Between the years of 1946 and 1956, the already diminishing incidence of breastfeeding was halved in the United States, leaving only 25% of infants still being breastfed at the time of hospital discharge. During the 1960s, when birth rates tapered off, infant formula companies began marketing campaigns in non-industrialized countries.  Unfortunately, poor sanitation led to steeply increased mortality rates among infants fed formula prepared with contaminated (drinking) water. Organized protests, the most famous of which was the Nestlé boycott of 1977, called for an end to unethical marketing.  The boycott is ongoing, due to marketing practices which violate the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes, in the U.S. and worldwide.
:Since the 1980s, the US and many other governments have made increasing breastfeeding rates a priority in improving the lifelong health of their citizens.
dpotter 21:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old History Section 

message: Is this article supposed to be about infant formulas or the horrors of bottle feeding? I can't tell! Doesn't take a genius to figure out who edited THIS article. 63.3.16.2 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no question that this is a controversial topic with strong opinions on both sides.  Contrary to your suggestion above, many authors with many differing viewpoints have edited this article.  Please try to contribute constructively by highlighting which statements you have POV concerns with and recommending alternatives. dpotter 16:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an extremely well referenced article - sometimes when all the facts are presented in a neutral forum there's an appearance of non-neutrality when traditional avenues (like advertising) are dominated by non-neutral parties. Ciotog 05:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My request to 'powerfully state conclusions' was a poor choice of words.  I meant 'clearly state conclusions', although I think that clear from the context of my comment.  IN response to your other point, I don't feel that balance of varying opinions should be the objective of this article: accuracy should be the objective.  As I mentioned before, where controversy exists, it should be mentioned, but that doesn't mean that unsupported opinions should receive equal coverage as well-researched science. -- dpotter (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I note that the problematic 64.180.8.245 edits also inserted a huge list of illnesses that are "risks" of formula feeding.  This list includes citations.  That is good.  The problem with the list, of course, is that it appears to have been carefully constructed by citing one or a few articles that happen to be on a particular side of each question.  Indeed, looking at the articles (try it) will reveal that in many cases even the articles' authors are uncertain of the strength of their results, or that there are response or review articles in the same or later issues of the same journals that were (of course) not cited.  Fixing this would require considerable effort, and, of course, it *is* the case that there are many illnesses whose risk does appear to be increased by formula feeding; the problem is that the way the list is presented distorts the evidence and enhances its credibility and relevance beyond what is correct and NPOV.  For example, "cancer" is in the list, but of course the statistical evidence that cancer risk in general is increased by formula feeding is essentially nonexistent, though the list's author appears to have found a single paper arguing that the risk of one particular type of cancer may be increased.
In essence, the list is a rather cynical attempt to distort the evidence to scare mothers about infant formula.  It's kind of like a long list of the health benefits of smoking (yes, there actually are some!) with a citation or two affixed to each one (okay, it is not that pernicious but it's sure along those lines).  I think it probably does not belong in the article in its current form but would like feedback from others. Tls (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigh.  What to do with a huge list of highly selective citations?

message: I'm concerned about the recent series of edits by 64.180.8.245 (all without summaries, of course).  This article used to be full of hyperbole from every concievable angle on breast and formula feeding, all, of course, either unsupported by citations or "supported" by citations that didn't actually include the facts they were cited in support of.  I and a few others have gradually gone through the article over time inserting citation-needed tags (some of which are of course attached to claims that probably *are* factual and some of which are probably *not* factual) and removing unsupported POV language like "Most scientists", "it is well established that" etc. where there's no supporting citation establishing "most", "well established", etc.  I think this has generally been done in a careful and NPOV way and made the article stronger even though it's on a subject many have strong emotional opinions on.
Then comes along some bozo like 64.180.8.245 and in the space of three or four interlocking edits, does the following things:  1) replace a bunch of citation-needed tags with embedded hyperlinks to La Leche League position papers (hint hint, nobody's position paper on anything is suitable as a citation for factual support).  2) Delete a bunch of other citation-needed tags without any explanation.  3) Strengthen a bunch of the POV language around the deleted citation-needed tags so the unsupported claims are even stronger.  4) Insert a long list of references at the end of the article seemingly cut-and-pasted from one of the aforementioned position papers' bibliographies, with no specific citation or indication of relevance.
A great example of how not to "contribute" to Wikipedia from an IP address that hasn't ever "contributed" to any other article.  Please, let's try to make this article a good example of how to say something neutral and factually supported about a controversial subject, not a good example of how to abuse Wikipedia's freedoms.  Tls (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV vandalism esp. involving citations

message: How many times does this ridiculous myth need to be debunked before the pro-BF zealots get it through their skulls that breast milk has NOTHING to do with IQ? 70.2.65.44 (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: IQ myth AGAIN!?

message: I really feel that if your children are born to early and unable to survive via natural means, well just as in the animal world, they would pass on. Although medical advancements are wonderful, the body is self aborting these fetuses for a reason.  
I too am a mother of twins, it sounds like you chose a poor hospital that failed to supply you with proper information and services. I breastfed my twins for 5.5 months and then gave in to the constant hounding of how easy it is to bottle feed, what a nightmare it is. I have always lived by the rule that I will not feed anything to anyone that I would not eat myself, it is amazing how many mothers I see that say how gross it smells and that they would never try it yet they feed it to a tiny helpless child and assume it is good for them.  
The most interesting article I have read recently is breastfeed.com/resources/articles/virgingut.htm
   
Through the research I have completed, artificial feeding is detrimental to our society. I work with one of those government funded programs and see hundereds of children ever week, the differences between the artifically fed and naturally fed children is astounding. For those that think it is a choice of how you feed your child, go buy it yourself! Also don't expect the Medicaid program to cover the average 286 additional doctors visits you will have in your life.
Fivestring2 (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twins mom.. 

message: :::Una Smith: Specifically, what POV problems do you see in the article? It makes it difficult to address problems unless we all know what is at issue. If you can provide specific examples of what is in violation of the NPOV policy it will be easier to fix. Thanks. (That said, the recent edits look to have made an improvement as far as I'm concerned and did cull some extraneous, tangential stuff.) croll (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: break

message: I think we're going to need to do some serious source checking.  Cardiovascular Disease was listed as an adverse outcome for formula feeding.  However, the list source says things like the benefits are "small and of little public health importance" and "no substantial long-term protective effect of breastfeeding."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried following through some of the sources for the claims in the Risks Increased section. Trying to perform a comprehensive review and reorganization will be challenging to say the least. I've done the following which will hopefully help some:1. Added PMID references to all cited journal articles (so at least somebody can more easily see if the claim is actually supported by the research or see if the article is relevant to the topic)2. Added a couple of URLs to journal articles that are available in full for free.3. Removed "Sepsis" as well as "Haemophilus Influenzae Meningitis" due to duplication with other entries ("meningitis" and "Haemophilus influenzae" respectively).4. Removed "Pyloric stenosis" since the source authors actually state at the end of their paper that their study outcome was contradicted by other studies so more research is necessary before coming to a more definitive conclusion. Fulara (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think we have enough information to split it in to "risks increased" and "risks slightly or possibly increased"?  I suspect that the first list would have about four items in it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to find an acceptable cutoff between slightly and markedly increased would probably cause contention. After viewing about 1/4 of the sources, I can see a few ways to split them, but I think the easiest way to split them would be to divide them based on what systems they affect (digestive, respiratory, etc.) I just tried doing this...hopefully making an improvement and not introducing too many errors. This reorg didn't take into account the validity/invalidity of any of the individual list items or sources though. That should probably come next if the general categorizations are deemed reasonable. Also, some descriptive text about the details of when the particular problem may occur (e.g. exclusive evaporated cow's milk, soy milk, exclusive formula feeding from birth, etc.) would be helpful at some point. Then, in the future, items can be added/removed as discoveries are made. Fulara (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Source checking

message: Does the fermented milk discussed in  qualify as an infant formula for purposes of this article? --Una Smith (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like this might not be formula.  I don't think infant formula is usually fermented though the abstract does mention that fermented is similar to unfermented milk save for the breakdown of lactose.  One line from the abstract that stood out to me is "The role of fermented milk in complementary feeding and in particular for the prevention of anaemia is an innovative theme, recently focused." - leads me to think that it isn't yet a standard practice...65.7.144.194 (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have any evidence that anyone uses it as a substitute for breast milk?  That's the minimum definition of infant formula.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fermented non-human milk

message: User:Arnshea tagged the article ;  I have asked the user to explain why here. --Una Smith (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now there is a section on the opposite, Infant Formula#Risks Decreased, which helps somewhat re balance.  One issue not well addressed is that risks are relative.  Infant formula may be inferior to breast milk, but superior to other foods.  At this point, the article does not clearly define the context in which infant formula is being compared, nor to what it is being compared.  Also, there is the matter of use:  infant formula as complementary food in addition to breast milk, or as substitute food  in place of breast milk.  Finally, given that lack of balance that Arnshea notes, the references cited may need to verified.  --Una Smith (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The WHO recommendation should be in the lead as it is a pretty improtant consensus of world opinion on formula/breastfeeding wouldn't you think? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  how so? In another section it states that less than 40% of babies are actually fed breast milk. That sounds very far from a consensus to me. Also there are many studies that show that formula is completely safe and has no long term consequences for the baby, and don't give me that 2 iq points cr&p thanks 132.66.235.247 (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced

message: The baby feeding from a bottle is cute, but not very relevant here, because the bottle could contain breast milk.  Can anyone find a more relevant photo?   One that illustrates infant formula, rather than bottle feeding? --Una Smith (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad thought, though there is then the problem of advertising (?) a particular brand maybe...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a photo of powder and liquid formulas not in the original packaging? Plus the mixing apparatus and the feeding apparatus.  The refridgerator, the warmer, the sterilizer, the potable water, etc.  Breastfeeding is *so* much simpler than feeding either infant formula or EBM. --Una Smith (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better idea...musing on advertising, there was a girl handing out promotional bags of S26 at the cinema on the weekend...weird...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Please make sure that this article cites references for all material. At present many unverifiable statements are included. I have tagged the page and will remove unsourced statements in the future. If any editors need to discuss how to follow WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:VER please contact me. 
The material in the article to date focuses overly much on USA and Europe. The history of infant formula in the 3rd world would be a worthy addition. SmithBlue (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm...right. I haven't seen you edit the page before and hence am puzzled by the above statement of you having placed tags. Placing specific tags rather than general ones would be best; a WHO paragraph (see two sections above) will go some way to addressing the lack of 3rd world refs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:VER,  WP:OR and WP:RS 

message: The Fomon refernce was used to support a paragraph implying, ("negative publicity against the formula industry"), that formula use was declining. Actually the article shows in Figure 8 a large sweeping % movement towards using formula for infants aged over 3 months. I have temporaily deleted the unbalanced material - if there is data showing a decrease pls bring that here quickly. Accuracy on the content of references is needed - otherwise this article looks silly and unbelievable. SmithBlue (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Fomon article was being cited incorrectly:  it describes a trend toward increased use in breastfeeding for newborns, and a deferment in the transition to cows milk, with a corresponding increased use of formula between the end of breastfeeding and introduction of cows milk.  I will replace some of the removed content with appropriate citations. -- dpotter (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that is definitely an improvement.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Usage since 1970s" (was "Declining popularity") 

message: The article really needs a definition of "infant formula", better sooner than later, because it sets the scope for the rest of the article.  "Not breastmilk" does not seem adequate. --Una Smith (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to the USFDA's definition: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-inf1.html It seems to be about the same as what's said in the lede, to me Ciotog (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: This new paper might be interesting -- biggest ever trial, etc, etc -- but I'm not sure whether it really belongs here or in breastfeeding.  Here's a magazine review on the study, for those who don't want to read the original source.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New source

message: I was hoping to remove the tag on the article. I read the following sentence, "Use of infant formula has been decreasing in industrial countries for over forty years[1] as a result of antenatal education, increased understanding of the risks of infant formula, and social activism." And then I read the source cited. 
Please show me how the source http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/99/4/e12 supports the above statement. Obviously if accuracy is so low that the lead is misleading then the tag cannot be removed. Yet. SmithBlue (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag on article/Accuracy 

message: On a fairly quiet article, tagged as having problems with accuracy, begining at 22:26, 24 November 2008, editor on IP 81.158.41.11 began a series of edits.
Maybe the pattern of anonymous edits is familar to the involved editors? If not, the following concerns me.
The new editor was serially reverted by editors Faradayplank, Lazylaces, Bsimmons666 and WhatamIdoing by 06:28, 25 November 2008.
No invitation to discuss on the articles discusion page was made by any editor. Three editors only stated that they were reverting and to what - no attempt to engage and build consensus is visible in their edits.
Editors Bsimmons666 and Lazylaces offered misleading and inaccurate interpretations of WP policies accusing editor on IP 81.158.41.11 of vandalism on their talk page.  []
I refer all involved editors to guideline Wikipedia:DBTN "Please do not bite the newcomers".
And policy WP:Edit war.
And point out that continuing to misrepresent WP policies and guidelines may be seen as WP:Disruptive editing
And that continuing to edit in such a manner may form Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
I request that editors Bsimmons666 and Lazylaces go to [] explain their mistakes and attempt to welcome the anonymous user. SmithBlue (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring and more. 

message: In what forms are infant formulas currently produced?
% of market of different current forms?
Total value of market; globally, by nation?
Total amount of infant formula consumed; globally, by nation?
Dangers of product/Excess dilution?
Dangers of product/Making up with contaminated water/contaminated vessel/storage without refrigeration?
Dangers of product/Excess mortality due to product?
Dangers of product/Contamination in manufacture?
Consumer groups relevant to product?
Others? SmithBlue (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: Does anyone have good sources about the melamine scandal in China?  Someone added information about (minor) contamination in the US supply, but this is very strange, given that children died in China from this, and no one seems to have been harmed by the US problem.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melamine contamination and US bias 

message: While I have the greatest respect for the original author's viewpoint, I am afraid that I felt it was important to remove a paragraph which explained that both infant formula and breastmilk contain environmental contaminants.  While the author's statements were not false, they were also not entirely true and were, based on my reading of the literature, misleading.  The amount of environmental contaminants a baby generally receives from breastmilk is virtually always much higher than they potentially could receive from infant formula.  Here is one quite good reference to illustrate my point (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240886).  Thankfully, the levels of many environmental contaminants have dropped over time in both breastmilk and infant formula, but I would think this trend is more a topic for the good people who edit the breastfeeding articles here.--Seekyetruth (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Contaminant Comparison 

message: I hope the author will forgive me, but I found the text of the author's post on Nutritional Value quite unusual and interesting.  Unfortunately, when I sought out the source, it seems that the US CDC webpage had been revised not to include the author's major points.  I apologize, but I thought it best to remove an unreferenced item.
Seekyetruth (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy and Science: Nutritional Value 

message: Hello again Friends - I hope the original author will forgive my edits, but my intentions are well meaning.  When I read the statements about defects in infant digestion as well as global infant formula production, I must say I was most interested in seeing the references.  Such data would be very informative to my work, and I have not seen such.
I also deleted a reference to evaporated milk as it implied superiority to pasteurized milk.  My concern was that a mother would not read the caveats and consider evaporated milk her best option if no formula was available.  But, the author raises a concern that I share.  There are many rogue substitutes promoted on the internet and in home wisdom.  In fact, I encountered a display of tinned goat's milk within a shelf of infant formula in the American South.  My heart goes out to infants harmed by that display.  The promulgation of such substitutes is unacceptable, and I would like to propose a new section discussing unhealthy feeds for infants (yes, I am aware of the humor, but be that as it may).
I welcome comments from the community.Seekyetruth (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Touch Up of Nutritional Content Section 

message: I hope I am not speaking to an empty room, but Hello once again!
If I could make a small suggestion to improve upon the fine work of a previous author, when I read the reference "In surveys, over 70% of large hospitals dispense infant formula to all infants, which is opposed by the AAP and in violation of the code.[73]" I felt I should communicate with the community about a little touch-up that may be in order.  The cited survey was conducted in 1990-1, which I assure you makes it quite dated on a topic such as this one.  I can appreciate the use of a survey of AAP Fellows as authoritative, but this particular survey (#13 cited as reference 73) may not be the best support of all the instances in the article where it is cited.
I do hope that the original author will consider some more contemporary citations as I believe they make her/his point more strongly.  For example, this article  surveyed 21 states in the Eastern United States in 2006-7 and found four states with 100% rates of infant formula discharge pack incidence.  I am sure many other good people in this community could cite some excellent sources.Seekyetruth (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution of Infant Formula Discharge Packs 

message: I see that there is a flag on this page that the neutrality of the article is questionable, yet while I see prior discussions about this, none that dates back to the date that this was flagged (april 2011).  So I just wanted to see what issues people are most concerned about so that they can begin to be tackled.  What I know about infant formula; however, is that it is extremely difficult to find information on it that is completely non-bias.  Either it is propaganda from manufacturers or from breastfeeding supporters.  So I see how this is difficult.  I have read a book with extremely interesting information about formula, but it admittedly has an extremely pro-breastfeeding bias (The Politics of Breastfeeding by Gabrielle Palmer).  I would like to put in some of the information from the book about the history of formula (which appears to be well researched...) but I would also like to adhere to the strive toward neutrality.  What should I do?  nothing? look through her sources for the original information? post the info on here first to get your viewpoint? just go for it? thanks for your help. Saritamackita (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is difficult to see where the priority lies for eventually removing the neutrality tag. I found the main challenge to this article was jumpiness and repetition; there were simply too many sections with bits and pieces of information, as mentioned above often difficult to be completely unbiased. I have restructured some sections so at least information on the same topic (e.g. environmental contaminant concerns, of both breastfeeding and formula feeding) are in the same place, so the reader can more easily make an informed decision.  I have also made some edits to specific wording, and especially double-checked many references and added more. Guptan99 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has the unmistakable stench of leftism:  quasi-criminal corporations hawking their virtually-poisonous products with complete indifference to woman's goddesslike status as lifegiver.  (Yeah — that's what I think every time I see some slob of a female swatting her children in a shopping mall:  "I hope that goddess breastfed those kids.") John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia, PA108.36.209.26 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

text: PS The photograph, too, of the infant lying casually unheld on an adult's crossed legs, is offensive.  Is that supposed to be a model of modern, relaxed parenting?  ("Everything under control here.")  Only a fool would position a baby that way, with a fulcrum beneath the neck; only a bigger fool would perch a baby uncertainly.108.36.209.26 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality concern

message: My goodness, this article has become only a shadow of the truth since I last visited.  Would you simply call this "cyanide" and end the unfortunate games you are playing and allow good mothers to see your hate?  A child at the breast of her own mother is far too precious for these rather queer distortions of the truth.  Must you share hate about an act that is purely love in the mother's eyes?  If your intent is to hate someone who wants to feed an infant they love, you are doing it wrong.  What happened to simple love of one's child?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekyetruth (talk • contribs) 07:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ladies! 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.nowpublic.com/health/infant-formula-recall-2010-similac-recall-abbott-labs-2677378.html#ixzz1UXTfToNy
*:Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: There was some confusion on the Infant formula page. The part about Neo-Mull-Soy was linked to the Syntex page which currently is about "Laboratorios Syntex SA" not "Syntex Corporation" who actually made Neo-Mull-Soy. The Syntex page should be renamed "Laboratorios Syntex SA" and a disambiguation page should be provided for "Laboratorios Syntex SA" vs. "Syntex Corporation". Breedentials (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Laboratorios Syntex SA" is not "Syntex Corporation" 

message: Human Milk Biochemistry and Infant Formula Manufacturing Technology, edited by Mingruo Guo, Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, 2014, page 201:
Chapter 7
"  .  .  .  Infants under the age of 6 months do not have the enzymatic capacity to digest starches.  Therefore, starches should not be permitted for infant formulae promoted for use by infants less than 6 months of age (CAC, 2006).  Starches present in infant formula for 0-6 months old are considered to be adulterants.  .  .  "
::posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  starches not recommended for infants 6 months and less? 

message: The Science of Mom, Alice Callahan PhD, Nov. 8, 2013.
https://scienceofmom.com/2013/11/08/amylase-in-infancy-can-babies-digest-starch/
"  .  .  .  It’s true that infants have low levels of pancreatic amylase, the workhorse of starch digestion in adults. 
.
.
.
"  .  .  .  Ethnographic reports are filled with examples of starchy first foods[4] for young infants around the world: Millet flour at 3 months in Tanzania; corn porridge at 3 months in Zimbabwe; beans and rice at 4 months in Brazil; a little butter and flour at 3 days in Bhutan; rice mash at 3 weeks in Nepal; and prechewed taro root at 2 weeks in the Solomon Islands. If babies were eating starch this young, with no apparent clinical signs of malabsorption, there must be more to the story.
.
.
.
"  .  .  .  A 1975 Italian study[5] added starch from different sources (potato, tapioca, corn, wheat, and rice) to 1-3-month-old babies’ formulas and then checked to see what came out at the other end –- in the babies’ poop. It turned out that very little starch ended up in these babies’ diapers.
.
.
.
"  .  .  .  Salivary amylase appears to survive[8] the acidic conditions of the stomach reasonably well and is protected by both the presence of starch and breast milk.[9]
.
.
.
"  .  .  .  Human breast milk has lots of amylase, 25x that found in raw cow’s milk.[10] Interestingly, it is highest in colostrum,[11] and decreases slowly during infancy, as salivary and pancreatic amylases are increasing.
.
.
.
"  .  .  .  Glucoamylase helps out in the small intestine. Glucoamylase is an enzyme made by the cells lining the walls of the small intestine. Like amylase, it breaks the bonds between glucose molecules in starch and shorter glucose chains. But unlike pancreatic amylase, glucoamylase is very active in infants, reaching adult levels as early as 1 month of age.[15],[16]
.
.
.
"  .  .  .  Studies have shown that a significant fraction of dietary starch isn’t digested in the small intestine of babies but passes on to the large intestine.[17],[18]  .  .  .  Bacteria in the colon ferment (quite a different process from rotting) these undigested carbohydrates as part of the healthy symbiotic relationship between our gut microbes and us humans.  .  .  The end products of microbial fermentation in the colon are short chain fatty acids, which can improve nutrient absorption, enhance gut health, and even be used as a source of energy for both the microbes and the human host.[20] Babies and toddlers may actually have faster colonic fermentation of starch than adults, which might represent an important pathway for them to fully capture the nutrients in their food.[21]
.
.
.
"  .  .  .  There seems to be a sweet spot kind of window in mid-infancy – probably between about 5 and 7 months, where introduction to a variety of foods, including grains, decreases baby’s risk of developing chronic disease and allergies later in life.  [complex topic, so of course it's controversial.  Hard to study all of it at once.]  .  .  .  "
::posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  and/or, breastfeeding assists with starch digestion, plus additional several enzymes and digestive pathways? 

message: We begin this paragraph by saying WHO has found formula to be a safe alternative, but a couple of sentences later, it sounds like WHO is recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months (if the broader circumstances allow).  Plus, we need a more recent WHO source than 2003.  I mean, it's okay to include this source, but it should not be one of the main sources we lean heavily on.  Cool Nerd (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  trouble with third paragraph of lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Infant formula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213003706/http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/pubs/infant-nourrisson/nut_infant_nourrisson_term_3-eng.php to http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/pubs/infant-nourrisson/nut_infant_nourrisson_term_3-eng.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711215534/http://ap.org/FOI/foi_112608b.htm to http://www.ap.org/FOI/foi_112608b.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927172129/http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/823/Goedert_07.html to http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/823/Goedert_07.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927084213/http://www.healthcoalition.ca/archive/hormones2006.pdf to http://www.healthcoalition.ca/archive/hormones2006.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110503210250/http://breastfeedingbasics.org/cgi-bin/deliver.cgi/content/International/his_code.html to http://www.breastfeedingbasics.org/cgi-bin/deliver.cgi/content/International/his_code.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511224550/http://ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September04/Features/infantformula.htm to http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September04/Features/infantformula.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321185321/http://www.aap.org/research/periodicsurvey/ps13.htm to http://www.aap.org/research/periodicsurvey/ps13.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531022711/http://www.breastfeeding.com/all_about/all_about_milk_banks.html to http://www.breastfeeding.com/all_about/all_about_milk_banks.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060913223644/http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309091500/html/R1.html to http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309091500/html/R1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007111614/http://www.health.alberta.ca/health-info/baby-formula.html to http://www.health.alberta.ca/health-info/baby-formula.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107145212/http://www.ifm.net/industry/prebiotics.htm to http://www.ifm.net/industry/prebiotics.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Section 3.2 by Country "UK" compared to section 4.6 "Follow-on and toddler formulas" appear to have a contradiction between the two sections. One indicates it is legal to advertise in UK the other indicates it is illegal. 04:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK legality of advertising formulas