That is disturbing.

I have seen DHAs marketed as "comfort proteins"...WTF does that mean?

I nursed Maya for 14 months but supplemented with formula starting at 7 months. If I have another baby, I will make it a point to steer clear of formulas with DHAs in them.

I just got back from the store about an hour ago getting formula for DS #2 for the first time.  He is 4.5 months, and I just don't seem to be filling him up any more.  I started on solids this week, and he seems to like the cereal OK (although I think he'd like it better if it came out of a nipple).  I was perusing Wal Mart's selection (we have VERY limited selections in this town) trying to figure out what was best and thought DHA/ARA was better. I got the same kind I used to give DS #1.  I just got a small can, though, since I planned to mainly mix it in his cereal and stuff.

Ugh.

DHA and EPA are essential nutrients whose benefits become increasingly apparent with every year of research.  We do not know how much we "need" in our diets, and there is no federally approved intake guideline.  But the benefits are clear and diverse.  

The problem is that the formula isn't made with purified DHA and EPA, it's made with an additive that contains DHA and EPA.  What else is in that additive?

My daughter is 13 months old, and she's been taking formula since she was 3 months, started as a supplement to breast milk. Now, she's on the Enfamil Next Step, since she seemed to have diarrhea when we tried to switch her to milk.

I haven't seen any digestive problems or health-related issues from the formula, which has had this stuff in it. I only saw her having problems when we quit giving it to her.

Gosh, we have to worry about so many things as parents -- why can't formula be simple? I already am worried about the hormones in meat and other things we put in our foods, as far as the early onset of puberty in girls ... but that's for another post, I guess.

Here's what I understand about the whole DHA/ARA thing:

The World Health Organization recommends DHA/ARA supplemented formulas when human milk isn't used.

It's been used in Europe for years.  It's not FDA approved because it doesn't have to be.  It's "generally recognized as safe." The company has to prove it's pure DHA/ARA, which is straightforward. We know that DHA/ARA is safe for human consumption obviously, it's not some new chemical.  And again, for further reassurance, it has been used in Europe for a long time.

I wouldn't worry about it coming from the algae.  Sounds creepy, but that's where the fish get it from anyway.

I do believe that some babies can get gassy from it, but I've never heard of ongoing diarrhea.  That sounds more like a milk allergy to me, but who knows.  If your kid seems to do better on the non-DHA formula, then use that.

If you have to use formula, and don't use a DHA/ARA one, that's fine too, because the precursor linolenic acid is in there, and the body can make its own, although not very efficiently.

From what I understand, nursing mothers have to make sure they intake enough DHA/ARA also.  So the whole DHA thing is more complicated than just formula unfortunately.

I worry more about fish oil supplements, which can be loaded with heavy metals like mercury, especially now that our fish supplies are becoming more and more polluted.

Once again, industry takes a useful nutrient and gives it a black eye by trying to fake the system.

Formula is a synthetic concoction of "additives".  I don't know how many of the ingredients have been rigorously safety tested - most foods aren't, it's more of an innocent until proven guilty standard.

I don't blame the companies for trying to improve the formula.  The evidence for omega-3 FAs is strong.  These supplements have been standard for years in europe, and here in the US there is generally little objection to plant based derivatives.

If the companies have failed to do the mandated surveillance, on the other hand, that is unconscionable.  If I had to guess (only a guess), I'd guess that the algal source can cause an allergic reaction.  But the companies should know and be warning us to watch for this by now.

The FDA lost the authority to regulate nutritional supplements more than a decade ago, due to regulations passed under powerful lobbying to "protect our access" to dietary supplements.  We have the right to choose our poison without government interference.  Fortunately we can trust the manufacturers to provide all the guidance we need.  After all, they are only looking out for our best interests - unlike those mean old bureaucrats who want to take away our vitamins and keep us unhealthy.

Does that sound cynical enough?

It's not exhaustive, but the review studies I found suggest that while the evidence isn't conclusive, there may be benefits to DHA and ARA formula versus formulas without.  As with any formula, breastmilk is best and the formula that your infant tolerates best is the second best to breastmlik.

I searched using "infant formula dha ara" and looked at review studies...
PubMed is here

and not a food.  Period.  Infant formula provides EVERY nutritional need to one of the most vulnerable populations, give me one example of any other food that is used in such a way.  

The FDA needs to regulate this industry much more strictly and instead of just having minimum requirements for certain vitamins and minerals, they need to systematically assess and regulate maximums as well.  Instead, they allow these companies regulate themselves, they are not beholden one bit to the FDA.  Self regulation works really great, too.  Look at Bush and Co.

For the babies that do NEED infant formula, this industry needs regulated.  For those in the 5% group having adverse reactions from DHA/ARA, keep in mind how many babies that is in the US; thousands upon thousands every year.  Why?  To sell more formula.