They are much less likely to be breastfed, which can change IQ by 3 points.
Not to detract from your main point, but breast feeding is one of those topics which has been highly politicized and any weird claims like this should be taken with a grain of salt. I've read a study claiming what you say (can't find it now), here's another study claiming that isn't true. There are many more. Enough that I think you'd need to be an expert in the field in order to sort between them.
Usually though, when researchers start dickering over this sort of thing, what you can say for sure is that whatever the effect may be it isn't large enough or definitive enough to shut up all the people who are wrong about it. So at the end of the day it likely doesn't matter.
What exactly are Harry Reid and Obama doing about the situation? Oh yeah - they're droning on and on about the embarrassment the current Senate majority is
Oh for Pete's sake... BOTH OF THOSE BILLS HAD MAJORITY SUPPORT. How is that not an embarrassment? The very existence of the Patriot Act, now the Freedom Act, is humiliating.
If subsidies were removed the US could (easily) produce enough agriculture to feed all 6 billion people on the earth.
Can you back this up? I question the accuracy of this statement, partly because the earth currently has 7.3 billion people (projected to exceed 8 billion in 2025), and partly because the only statistic for this that I can find gives 200 million as the most that the United States could support sustainably at a high standard of living. Now, sustainable support isn't what we're talking about here (though it should be) we're talking about support by any temporary means. Our current extremely high yields are thanks to artificial fertilizer, but if you want to stretch that to 6 billion people (or 7.3 billion) you're talking about an awful lot of fertilizer.
Eureka! -- Archimedes