Of course it does--milk has a lot of sugar in it. Breastmilk is about 7.1 g/100ml (all lactose), and good infant formula is about the same. Coke is 10.2 g/100 ml (fructose and sucrose). Some infant formulas do have added sucrose.
The problem is the types of sugars (and I should have been more specific about that wrt formula). Infant formulas are loaded with fructose, through HFCS, corn syrup, corn syrup solids, and table sugar[1]. As you point out, those sugars do not exist in breast milk. Give the very different metabolic path fructose takes, and the load it places on the liver, combined with the trend towards obese six month olds, I would say those formulas aren't doing good things to our kids.
My kids are way past breast feeding/formula stage, but if they weren't, I would certainly be watching very closely what ingredients were in the formula if my wife chose not to or couldn't breast feed. I'm sure there are good formulas if you dig a little.
Formula fed kids can get fat because there is no limit on consumption, whereas breastmilk is limited to mother's supply.
By far the worst problem with HFCS is that it is pumped into foods that shouldn't have any added sugar at all, like breads, and marinades, and water, and all that junk sold in boxes at supermarkets. Being different from lactose isn't anywhere near as significant.
And the economic/agricultural issues around HFCS are problematic-- not a nutrition issue.
As somebody who has done a lot of research and decided the evidence overwhelmingly shows how bad excessive, simple carbohydrates are for you, I completely agree with your statement about sugar being added to everything. It is frustrating to not be able to buy meat without worrying about sugar.
As far as your comment about HFCS not being different, I respectfully disagree. I don't think HFCS is markedly different than, say, table sugar: both are about 50% glucose and 50% fructose. But fructose is processed differently, and the increased burden that places on the liver causes a whole host of problems, not just obesity. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is now a common disease, and that is the effect of all the fructose being dumped on us.
So, yes, HFCS is a nutritional issue, as well as a political and agricultural issue, but certainly not because it's "unnatural" but because the thing that gives it it's sweetness (without a shell of fiber around it) is toxic to our bodies when consumed in large quantities over a long period of time.
One question to ponder: if there was not sone fundamental difference in nutrition, why would babies gorge themselves to obesity on it? Milk production follows baby's demand, as any mother can tell you during a child's growth spurt. If the baby wanted to eat more, the mother would produce it. But they don't. Instead, something fundamental is different.
I believe it is the type of sugar and I believe the evidence backs that up. But I also think a lot more research needs to be conducted, because the evidence isn't iron-clad.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the studies in nutrition for the last 30-40 years have done little more than massage results to fit the prevailing politics (aka what the government will fund). Nutritional "science"[1] is badly broken, and it takes looking deeper into the biochemistry to start getting clues about what is bad for us and what isn't.
1. My latest favorite is the "top-baldness raises your risk of heart disease". These kinds of "results" are claimed all of the time, with little apparent thought to "is it causal or does something else cause top-baldness and heart disease?
Of course it does--milk has a lot of sugar in it. Breastmilk is about 7.1 g/100ml (all lactose), and good infant formula is about the same. Coke is 10.2 g/100 ml (fructose and sucrose). Some infant formulas do have added sucrose.