自1865年问世以来，婴儿配方奶粉已取得了长足的进步，如今美国食品药品监督管理局（FDA）等监管机构规定配方奶粉中必须包含至少30种重要营养素的最低含量。然而，现代配方奶粉制造商经常推销其产品中添加的非必需添加剂，例如益生元、益生菌和长链多元不饱和脂肪酸（LCPUFA）。2023年发表在《英国医学杂志》（BMJ）上的一项针对15个国家757种配方奶粉产品的研究发现，超过半数的产品声称有助于大脑、眼睛或神经系统的发育，但其中四分之三的产品没有引用任何科学参考文献来支持其说法。

对于确实引用了参考文献的产品，其科学支持通常很薄弱，且容易受到行业影响。引用的文献中只有一半是临床试验，而这些试验中注册的还不到三分之一。此外，在注册的随机对照试验中，90%的声称依赖于被研究作者认为具有高偏倚风险的证据。添加LCPUFA的实际益处在科学上仍存争议：2017年对涉及1889名婴儿的15项试验进行的审查显示，其在大脑发育或视力敏锐度方面没有改善；2021年对英国青少年的一项研究也发现其没有带来学术优势。相反，2025年发表在《营养素》杂志上的一项针对1039名婴儿的元分析确实观察到了轻微但具有统计学意义的认知改善。

虽然人工配方奶粉已被证明是安全且营养丰富的，但专家们担心，激进且煽情的营销夸大了其科学优越性，可能会削弱母乳喂养。与任何配方奶粉相比，母乳喂养的健康益处（包括降低婴儿感染率、哮喘和过敏率）是公认的，而且它也是一种更具成本效益的选择。FDA和其他健康机构建议母乳喂养是最佳选择，但强调必须依赖配方奶粉的母亲不必担心其安全性和营养价值，尽管有些营销宣传超前于科学共识。

Infant formula has advanced significantly since its inception in 1865, and regulators like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now mandate the inclusion of minimum levels of 30 vital nutrients. However, modern formula manufacturers frequently market their products with claims about non-essential additives, such as prebiotics, probiotics, and long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFAs). A 2023 BMJ study analyzing 757 formula products across 15 countries found that over half made claims regarding the development of the brain, eyes, or nervous system, yet three-quarters of these products cited no scientific references to support their assertions.

For products that did cite references, the scientific backing was often weak and prone to industry influence. Only half of the cited references were clinical trials, and fewer than a third of those were registered. Furthermore, among the registered, randomized comparative trials, 90% of the claims relied on evidence deemed by authors to have a high risk of bias. The actual benefits of LCPUFA supplementation remain scientifically equivocal: a 2017 review of 15 trials involving 1,889 infants showed no improvements in brain development or visual acuity, and a 2021 study of British adolescents found no academic advantage. Conversely, a 2025 meta-analysis in Nutrients of 1,039 babies did observe a minor, statistically significant cognitive improvement.

While artificial formulas have been proven safe and nutritious, experts express concern that aggressive marketing exaggerates their scientific superiority, potentially undermining breastfeeding. The health benefits of breastfeeding over formula—including reduced rates of infant infections, asthma, and allergies—are well-established, and it remains a more cost-effective option. The FDA and other health organizations recommend breastfeeding as the optimal choice, but emphasize that mothers who must rely on formula should feel reassured about its safety and nutritional value, despite marketing claims that outpace scientific consensus.

Source: How good is infant formula?

Subtitle: Perhaps less than its marketers say

Dateline: 6月 25, 2026 03:29 上午