A front page story in Monday’s New York Times discussed the growth of organic baby formula and questioned whether Pharma giant Abbott Nutrition’s Similac Organic’s growing success might be at the cost of infants nursing on the sweetened formula. 
Unlike other products, the Times reports that Similac Organic uses sucralose as a sweetener. (Free registration required). While approved by the FDA for use in infant formula, the story notes several pediatricians who question whether the early introduction of refined sugars in infancy might cause a variety of problems including tooth decay as well as a propensity to obesity. Experts differ as to the potential for problems.
While acknowledging that the other organic formulas, notably Hain Celestial’s Earth Best uses milk lactose instead of the more controversial sugar the story leaves the impression that organic might not be better.
In addition, the story fails to draw the bigger distinction between me-too corporate giant copycat organic brands, and those that, well for lack of better words, really started the whole organic ball rolling.
Kudos to the Times for acknowledging that just because its organic doesn’t mean it’s better. Too bad they didn’t take a bit more time on the details.
