The second consideration.
The law states that evaporated goat milk is considered an infant formula.
The third consideration.
A consideration is not science in the feeding trials sense. And yet it does tell us something. I would suggest that these considerations will provide better information about infant nutrition than feeding trials.
The safety assessment mentioned in the above law is valid science. One would think that changing law, would qualify goat milk for a chance to become a human milk substitute. But no.
See the interactions with government below. Many of these 43 considerations are reason enough to allow the clinical feeding trials of pasteurized whole goat milk with a few vitamins to become an infant food.
How many considerations does it take to make science? How accurate are feeding trials at determining the efficacy of human milk substitutes? This science has given us the current infant formulas. They are associated with a wide variety of disease and other negative situations.[see below]
The fourth consideration.
The law states “benefits” for Canadians if goat milk is used as an infant formula. This means success where others have failed. If a infant formula succeeds where others fail, then a strong consideration is presented that shows the superiority of goat milk as an infant formula. What would happen if there was a infant formula that was better than all other alternatives? People would gravitate to the superior product. Goat milk has gained a reputation for being an infant food. These healthy infants would show up at “well baby clinics.” 20,000 of such stories have came into these clinics. Is this the safety assessment?