January 19, 2018 Read Original Release

Memory, learning benefits from adding prebiotics to infant formula – for piglets

Reviewed By

Rating

Prebiotics in infant formula could improve learning and memory and alter brain chemistry.

Our Review Summary

Using piglets to test hypotheses related to infant brain development and the consumption of prebiotics seems to be important research, but at this point, it is hard to tell how relevant this research is to humans. A better discussion of the benefits and harms found in the study, as well as the human relevance of the overall research would have greatly improved this release. Nothing in the release relates to breast milk — it only compared formulas. Any discussion of formula versus breast milk in infant development needs to refer to the overall context of what we know about the topic already and this release skipped those details.

Why This Matters

It could be important if nutrition research, focused on giving prebiotic formula to piglets, were demonstrated to be applicable to humans. While formula-fed piglets might have shown higher scores on a “novel object recognition” test, it is far too early to imply that these results would be replicated in humans. The likely value of this research is in better understanding of the relationships between gut and neurological function. That’s important basic science, but not ready for clinical application. Reports of animal research sponsored by a major manufacturer of the product being researched needs to be treated with a high level of scrutiny and possibly skepticism.

Criteria

Does the news release adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There is no discussion of the associated costs of both formula and prebiotic-enhanced formula which could be considerable considering the amount and length of time an infant would consume it.

Does the news release adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The description of benefits lacks any mention that trials in piglets may have little bearing on how human infants would respond to the prebiotic formula.

All we learn is that two-day old piglets given a cow’s milk-based infant formula supplemented with polydextrose (PDX) and galactooligosaccharide (GOS) were tested at 25 days old with learning, memory, and stress tests. There is no evidence to suggest that the same result would be found in human infants.

Does the news release adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There are known disadvantages of formula over breast milk so harms should be included in any discussion of changing infant nutrition patterns.

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The strength of the research, its validity and relevance to humans were mostly missing from this research. If piglets fed PDX and GOS spent more time playing with new objects than pigs who didn’t receive prebiotic supplements it is premature to declare this any sort of real medical advance.

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There is no obvious disease-mongering here.

Does the news release identify funding sources & disclose conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The release notes that the research was funded by Mead Johnson Nutrition, the manufacturer of a prebiotic infant formula.

Does the news release compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

There was a clear need to discuss the alternative to infant formula which is, of course, breast milk of the mother mammal. It is curious to know if the control piglets were able to suckle with their mother, and thus gain other socio-emotional benefits of that bonding (plus probably other important developmental constituents of breast milk) denied to the formula-fed pigs.

Does the news release establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

This published study (but not the release) mentions that infant formula supplemented with prebiotics are currently available.

Does the news release establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The release hints that the novelty of the research is that the formula testing involved piglets instead of the traditional rodents used in such studies. “Piglets are widely considered a more informative model for human infants than mice and rats; their digestive systems, behavioral responses, and brain development are remarkably similar to human infants,” the release claimed.

Does the news release include unjustifiable, sensational language, including in the quotes of researchers?

Satisfactory

There is no mention in the title or first paragraph that this was piglet research (which could be misleading for those who only read the title and the first paragraph) yet the language used was largely appropriate.

Total Score: 4 of 10 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.

You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.

This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.

We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.

There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”

The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.

And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.

The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.