Palm Oil in Infant Formula

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Palm Oil in Infant Formula
13
Thu, 05-15-2003 - 11:06am
We had some discussion awhile ago on whether one brand of formula was better than another. This study seems to show a difference in brands.

Palm Oil in Infant Formula Blunts Bone Mineralization

By David Douglas

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) May 06 - Use of palm oil and its more liquid fraction, palm olein, to supplement infant formula may adversely affect skeletal development, researchers report in the May issue of Pediatrics.

As lead investigator Dr. Winston W. K. Koo told Reuters Health, "optimization of bone mass can begin during infancy with appropriate nutritional intake," but "infant formulas with similar contents can have different biological outcomes, depending on the ingredients added."

Dr. Koo of Wayne State University, Detroit, and colleagues point out that palm oil and olein "are used in some infant formula fat blends to match the fatty acid profile of human milk." Nevertheless, there is evidence that such additives lower calcium and fat absorption.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a double-blind study of 128 infants who were randomized to receive cow milk-based formulas with or without palm olein. The palm olein-containing formula was Enfamil with iron (Bristol Myers); the palm olein-free was Similac with iron (Abbott Laboratories).

Measurements taken at baseline (2 weeks of age) and at 3 and 6 months showed no significant differences between groups in factors such as weight and formula intake. However, infants fed the palm-containing formula showed significantly lower bone mineral content and bone mineral density at 3 and 6 months.

Matching the fatty acid profile of human milk by using palm olein, the researchers conclude, "may result in an unintended depression of bone mass accretion and may potentially be detrimental to optimal bone health."

Pediatrics 2003;111:1017-1023

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/453538?mpid=13289&WebLogicSession=PsLVn1JFzd8e2sMGw8mctut4Mg3b3T2eDSeYQcaAR3eOhrA2PCJz|-5841439536295383573/184161394/6/7001/7001/7002/7002/7001/-1

Pages

Avatar for luv_my_boyz
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2003
Thu, 05-15-2003 - 11:11am
That's a really interesting article. At the research hospital in my city, they are doing a bone density study on 4 month old infants, comparing bf and ff infants. Maybe this issue is the impetus for their study.

Danielle

Avatar for cl_sunny_side_up
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 05-15-2003 - 11:38am
A login name and password are required to read the link you provided.

christine


~christine~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 05-15-2003 - 11:45am
Sorry! This is why I post the whole text for the article. I post the link for those who are already signed up or wish to sign up, as anyone is allowed to sign up to access their info.

If this isn't acceptable, I won't post their articles on the board. Although, they do have the latest info on current studies. I receive an e-mail which gives me the latest studies on pediatrician related topics.

Sherry

Avatar for cl_sunny_side_up
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 05-15-2003 - 12:51pm
Not a problem....just wondered if there was any other reading on the subject:)


christine


~christine~

Avatar for cl_sunny_side_up
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 05-15-2003 - 1:52pm
Ok, I attempted to cut and paste and for some reason I had a very difficult time. So here is the link. It is also available in Adobe form but thought this would be better. The entire article is quite interesting, but pay particular attention to page 3 where it discusses calcium absorption and oils.

http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:qCNT_AnBEj4C:www.cmc-dayton.org/media/PedForum/formula.pdf+palm+olein+calcium+absorption&hl=en&ie=UTF-8



"Research has shown that coconut oil is needed for good absorption of fat and calcium from infant formulas. The soy oil (47%) and palm olein (53%) formula gave 90.6% absorption of fat and 39% absorption of calcium, whereas the soy oil (60%) and coconut oil (40%) gave 95.2% absorption of fat and 48.4% absorption of calcium (Nelson et al 1996). Both fat and calcium are needed by the infant for proper growth. These results clearly show the folly of removing or lowering the coconut oil in infant formulas."~~~~~Here is the link to the entire article: http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/28/coconut_health3.htm


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9710840&dopt=Abstract

Now, this link is just an abstract of a study. I find it intersting that researchers are coming to the conclusion that the absorption rate of bf and ff(depending on palm or oleic oil) is so drastically different. Formula contains many times the amount of calcium in bm. Isn't it safe to assume that an infant would excrete more calcium from formula than bm?? It contains alot more...they excrete alot more.


"How bones develop during this period and throughout childhood can potentially affect bone health for life"

Well now, this statement is putting the bone density scare into perspective. It's WELL known that our bones continue to develop and grow throughout infancy, childhood, and adolescence. I do NOT think that the reduction in bone density for the first year of life is a detriment to a person. Sure, the bones grow att heir fastest rate in the first year...BUT, they continue to grow for many many many years. Bone mineral content changes throught childhood.


<<<"Funding for the study was provided by Abbott Laboratories' Ross Products Division (Columbus, Ohio), a manufacturer and marketer of pediatric and adult nutritional products including the Similac line of infant formulas.">>>

Hmmm.....now isn't that interseting. VERY interesting indeed. Scare the crap out of parents so they buy YOUR formula. Hmmmm....Ross Laboratories makers of Similac, the only formula to NOT contain palm olein oil. Ok..I see what's going on now. Disregard all previous knowledge that bones develop over years and years of time, that the mineral content of bones changes throughout childhood and is GREATLY influenced by such a diet.


christine





Edited 5/15/2003 1:56:22 PM ET by cl-sunny.side.up


~christine~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 05-15-2003 - 8:11pm
Ok, I'll admit this is over my head, LOL!

It seems that this study I posted contradicts earlier studies? Danielle mentioned the research hospital in her area is doing a study on this. It certainly sounds like more research needs to be done.

I did notice that it said "can potentially affect bone health for life". So it's not known if this is detrimental long term.

I do agree with you about the conflict of interest. I wonder if they are hoping that pediatricians will now recommend Similac.

Sherry

Avatar for cl_sunny_side_up
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 05-15-2003 - 10:32pm
I do believe that the, "can potentially affect bone health for life" is over-doing it don't you think?? I mean let's put it into perspective. So...if for no other time in your life you take in calcium. The first year of life that you did will stay with you forever?? I don't think so. How in any other way can it affect it?? I can't remember how long your bones continue to grow and mineralize but I thought it was well into your 20's. You can improve on your bone quality up until then. From 20's on..your bones naturally begin to .....do whatever it is they do....lmao. I am no expert in this.


christine


~christine~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 05-15-2003 - 11:31pm
Beware...funding provided by Abott labs (Ross=Similac)

"WSU Study Finds a Significant Difference Between Infant Formulas in Building

A Baby's Bones


Pediatrics Study Shows That Babies Develop Greater Bone Mineral Content When


Fed Infant Formula Without Palm Olein Oil as an Ingredient

DETROIT, May 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Infants fed different infant formulas can

develop significantly different levels of bone mineral content and bone

mineral density -- key indicators of bone strength -- according to a study

appearing in the May issue of Pediatrics, the official journal of the

American Academy of Pediatrics.

"Our research showed that babies develop significantly greater, more

favorable levels of bone mineral content and density when fed an infant

formula without palm olein oil than when fed a formula containing that oil,"

said Winston W. K. Koo, M.D., Wayne State University Professor of Pediatrics

and author of the study.

"Infancy is an especially critical time to be building bone because bone mass

increases at its fastest rate during the first year. How bones develop

during this period and throughout childhood can potentially affect bone

health for life," Dr. Koo stated.

Pediatric healthcare providers and parents can influence infant bone

development by recommending and providing a diet that promotes excellent

calcium absorption and leads to higher levels of bone mineral content and

density.

"Breast feeding is still the best way to go," Dr. Koo said. "But for babies

who are not breastfed, our study showed that not all infant formulas are the

same, even if their nutritional content is essentially the same on the label.

There are important differences in the selection of ingredients that

significantly influence calcium absorption and bone mineralization."

The two infant formulas compared in the study had the same level of calcium,

but had differences in key ingredients including the oil blend and type of

calcium salts used. "When evaluating an infant formula, you need to consider

the whole nutrient matrix. We knew from research reported by others that a

palm olein-free infant formula, such as Similac With Iron, had an advantage

in calcium absorption. Our new clinical evidence linked this formula's

greater calcium absorption to a greater increase in bone mass, and that

likely means stronger bones," Dr. Koo said.

The study was conducted at Hutzel Hospital, Wayne State University.

Whole-body bone mineralization was determined by dual energy X-ray

absorptiometry, a technique that scans the body to measure bone mineral

content and density.

"This sophisticated instrumentation helped make our findings possible," Dr.

Koo said. "Bone mineralization cannot be determined simply by looking at

someone. On physical examination there were no differences in the infants'

weight, length and head circumference over the course of the study. But our

instrumentation provided a new window on what was happening in the

development of bone within the babies' bodies."

Funding for the study was provided by Abbott Laboratories' Ross Products

Division (Columbus, Ohio), a manufacturer and marketer of pediatric and adult

nutritional products including the Similac line of infant formulas.

With more than 1,000 medical students, WSU is among the nation's largest

medical schools. Together with its clinical partner, the Wayne State

University Physician Group, the school is a leader in patient care and

medical research in a number of areas, including cancer, genetics,

neuroscience and women's and children's health.

SOURCE Wayne State University

CO: Wayne State University

ST: Michigan

SU: SVY CHI

http://www.prnewswire.com

05/05/2003 11:00 EDT"

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 05-15-2003 - 11:33pm
Exactly, Christine.

See why I am so wary about stuff often? So many studies that show anything negative about bfing end up with some sort of financial connection to the oh-so-powerful formula companies. :-(

I don't trust 'em further than I can throw a feather.

Fio.

Avatar for cl_sunny_side_up
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 05-15-2003 - 11:39pm
I also noticed that formula companies.....and their websites put out such bs!! Seriously, I found a wonderful link with some great evidence....the science behind advertising. I posted that link. It's very good indeed. Anyway...I was surprised to read conflicting studies....one that states bf and ff babies have drastically different calcium absorption rates, and another that stated the exact opposite. INFACT, went so far as to show on a pie graph that babies fed (((uh hem)))....Enfamil, had GREATER calcium absorption rate than that of bfers.


christine


~christine~

Pages