Is this where we're headed?

  

photo by ewen and donabel, reprinted under a Creative Commons License

The front page of today's New York Times features an article on the use of sucrose in Similac Organic baby formula:

Parents may be buying it because they believe organic is healthier, but babies may have a reason of their own for preferring Similac Organic: it is significantly sweeter than other formulas.  It is the only major brand of organic formula that is sweetened with cane sugar, or sucrose, which is much sweeter than sugars used in other formulas.

So there are several interesting issues raised here:

1. Many people continue to equate the term "organic" with "healthy" even though "organic" simply means that a food contains ingredients grown without the use of certain pesticides or herbicides.  (Let's not forget that you can buy organic junk food.)  Organics may be better for the earth, but that doesn't mean that every organic product is necessarily the most nutritious choice.  If I had the ability to draw a Venn diagram here to underscore my point, I would. 

2.  Sugar is sugar is sugar, right?  Well, not necessarily.  As the debate over high fructose corn syrup continues to rage, experts differ in their beliefs over how various sugars (HFCS, sucrose, lactose, fructose) affect the body.  I choose to avoid HFCS. If I were bottle-feeding an infant, I'd now have to decide whether to avoid a sucrose-sweetened formula as well.

3.  Is there an element of corporate greed here?   Organic sucrose costs Similac's makers less than the organic lactose used by its competitors.  (Lactose is also thought to better approximate breast milk.)  Economists (you know who you are), please weigh in on the subject of corporate responsibility versus improving the bottom line.

4.  The article also points out that a taste for sweet is established very young. When taken to its logical extreme, drinking a super-sweetened formula may encourage children both to overeat in infancy and to continue preferring sweeter foods once they're weaned. 

5.  The EU has decided to ban sucrose-sweetened formulas by the end of next year.  The EU, in fact, bans many things that the FDA has traditionally considered safe (like genetically modified foods).

Where do you stand?

Comments

[Liz]

Um, what ever happened to good old breastmilk? From what I've been told, the mom-made stuff is plenty sweet. I've heard that traditional formula is gag-nasty. Now we have a new crunchy-mom luring recipe with meth-like addictive properties?

Speaking of feeding our kids crrrap (say it like the Scotsman from those 90s SNL skits), here's some sad news from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR2008050900527_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008050900554

[Andrew Pearlman]

First of all, serving jelly beans to a baby is incredibly irresponsible. The beans MUST be pureed first, or they'll be a choking hazard.

Second, based on all these economics books in my office, I might as well comment on point #3.

Hate to be glib, but the corporation's main responsibility IS its bottom line. Corporate greed makes so many of the things we buy better and cheaper, so let's just start with a rousing cheer for corporate greed.

With that out of the way, I'll also point out that there are plenty of reasons for government regulators to prevent corporations from doing whatever the hell they want. These reasons are known as "market failures," because when they happen, unfettered markets can yield bad outcomes for society. A situation known as "imperfect information" is one possible source of market failure.

Imagine this: two firms, one sells formula with expensive healthful lactose, the other sells formula with cheaper sucrose. Suppose both formulas taste the same and are sold for the same price. The sucrose company will have bigger profits and will be able to compete the lactose company out of existence by virtue of its lower costs. UNLESS the lactose company puts a big label on its product that says "lactose is healthier than sucrose" and people believe it. Then both products can survive in the market at different prices.

But what if the sucrose company puts a "sucrose is WAY healthier than lactose" label on its product? Then the consumer sees both products being identical again, and the lactose product will get competed into oblivion.

What's the best outcome? Probably both products being available at different prices to reflect the different costs of production. (Unless sucrose is SO terrible that it shouldn't be allowed in baby formula.) Let people have a choice and pay accordingly.

In this case, an argument can be made for government regulation. We have food labeling laws (ingredients, nutritional content) and regs that prevent false marketing claims. If these regulations work, then we're all set, and people can choose what they like. But if people don't know lactose is better, then we might need more aggressive labeling, like cigarettes: "Studies show that lactose is superior to sucrose as an artificial formula." Then we're sure everyone has the information they need to make a choice they'll be happy with, and competition will provide us with products we like at the lowest possible prices.

So: food companies sell us all kinds of crap that is bad for us and our kids. It's mostly our job to choose how much to swallow, and we get an assist from government rules like labeling, marketing claims and product safety. Some food companies choose to be more "responsible" about healthful products than others, and most of the time they charge more for this service. But ultimately, having choices is (usually) good for us.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go hit someone over the head with a gas tax.

[Andrew Pearlman]

Holy cow, that was a long comment I just unleashed. This is not going to be good for the reputation of us economists as scintillating people.

[Cheryl]

Anybody have an aspirin? I've got a splitting headache all of a sudden.

Seriously though, Andrew, you offer an important perspective. I often overlook economic realities because it's more convenient not to consider them when I'm impassioned about something, but your feedback is important.

As for economists having or not having a reputation as scintillating people, I'm gonna just leave that comment alone.

[Clifton]

After reading Omnivore’s Dilemma and In Defense of Food I have definitely come to the conclusion that eating things that look like themselves, in other words natural foods, is the only way to go as that insures that you are getting all the micronutrients that the natural food holds. For example, carrots have 13 different varieties of carotene, not just beta-carotene. If you eat the real thing then you get all 13 and in the correct proportions. Processed foods tend to add only specific vitamins and minerals, and no micronutrients, and not necessarily in the amounts the body can use. Nutritional research has just only begun to scratch the surface of what is in natural foods so we cannot rely on the nutritional advice that the Government or any other organization puts out. So I am going back to the natural foods and stressing fruits and vegetables as 2/4ths of each meal, at least, and 1/4th protein and 1/4th whole grain. We even use butter once or twice a week. I also believe that the foods you buy in the grocery store are vastly inferior to the foods that are organic as the meat, fish, poultry, etc. are fed corn products or worse, even when the animal is not a corn eater. The real danger additive is HFCS and I would urge everyone to cease buying any food/drink that has it in it.

[Jen Simons]

I know that this is off topic in that it does not pertain to babies but EVERYTHING has sugar in it, it seems. I made pork loin the other night and the applesauce, the corn niblets, the salad dressing, all had (surprise)SUGAR. I resent the fact that I have to check every single label for sugar.