Are GMOs contributing to the rise in chronic health conditions in our children?

Michelle Perro, MD
Published: December 23, 2015
Through sanitation, better nutrition, medical care and many other advances, we naturally expect that children’s health should continually improve over time. However, this has not been the case in recent years. Many childhood diseases are on the rise and the rate of change is too rapid to be explained by genetic change. Thus, we turn our attention to environmental and dietary factors. Is there biological plausibility for a connection to genetically engineered foods?

Rising rates of childhood diseases

About 43% of US children (~14 million out of 32 million) have at least 1 of 20 different chronic health conditions.[1] Even more worrisome is that the incidence rates of the following diseases and conditions have shown significant increases in the last 20 years, but with no clear explanations: cancer,[2] asthma and allergies[3] – including allergies requiring hospitalization[4] – Type 1 diabetes,[5] inflammatory bowel disease,[6] behavioral and learning disabilities,[7] and (although it is somewhat debated) autism spectrum disorder.[8]
When the rate of a disease increases over a period of a few years, changing nutritional and environmental influences are a likely cause since human genes do not change that quickly. Thus, one or more external factors likely explain the increased numbers of cases of the childhood diseases mentioned above. All the factors that have changed in children’s lives should be investigated, especially those resulting in pervasive, near-universal exposures. It would be prudent to consider whether there is a plausible biological link between GE foods and certain childhood diseases, in at least some children.
The first thing to understand about the childhood illnesses named above is that in nearly all individuals, there isn’t one single factor that can be pinpointed as their cause. For example, some children get asthma from a combination of air pollution, stress, and nutritional deficiencies. Others may get it from having had smoking parents and early exposure to substances that alter their gut bacteria, such as antibiotics. So, for instance, a food contaminant that disrupts human gut bacteria could be one of several cumulative influences on children’s immune system.

A change in our children’s diet

It has been estimated that 70 to 80% of the processed and manufactured foods available in a conventional grocery store contain one or more ingredients derived from genetically engineered (GE) organisms (also known as “GMOs”).[9] The most common GE-derived ingredients include corn, soybean, and canola cooking oils, high-fructose corn syrup, a variety of meals and flours, and dozens of other ingredients designed to increase protein content, alter cooking and baking properties, or add other attributes to a given food product.
Children are exposed to GE foods in soy infant formula, soymilk, corn chips, and corn-based cereals, as well as to GE ingredients in most processed foods that contain soy- and corn-derived ingredients. In addition, they consume the products of animals that have been fed GE crops. The GE industry claims that the novel proteins in GE foods consumed by animals are broken down in the animals’ digestive tracts and that they are therefore not present in the foods children eat. Contrary to these claims, there are studies that have identified intact GE proteins in processed and manufactured foods and in animal products.[10] Despite these findings, the government, industry, and independent scientists have made little effort to track the pathways through which GE proteins are broken down and to assess the possible toxicity or allergenicity of the breakdown products.
We have a responsibility to ensure that GE foods are not causing unintended, unexpected health effects. Over the last two decades, GE varieties of corn, soybeans, and cotton cultivated in the US have steadily increased. By 2014, the vast majority of these three crops were genetically engineered (see graph above); for example, 95% of the acres of soybeans were planted in GE soybean varieties.[11] GE wheat varieties are not commercially available at this time.
Not only are we consuming these GE crops, but they are fed to animals as well, which impacts the nutrient composition, and possibly safety, of meat and poultry, eggs, milk and dairy products, and farmed fish. In the case of foods from Roundup Ready® crops, glyphosate residue may also be present.

The role of glyphosate

Most GE food crops have been engineered to resist the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®. The amount of glyphosate used on farmland in the US has increased rapidly over the last 15 years, from 85-90 million pounds in 2001 to 180-185 million pounds in 2007[12] and around 250 million in 2015[13]. It is also known that formulated herbicide products that contain both glyphosate and a mix of so-called “inert” ingredients (mostly adjuvants and surfactants) are more toxic than glyphosate by itself, and that the unique mix of ingredients in a given formulation alters both the product’s environmental fate and its toxicity to different organisms.[14]
Glyphosate kills herbaceous plants through a complex, indirect mechanism. It interferes with the synthesis of certain amino acids via a biochemical pathway called the “shikimate pathway.”[15] These amino acids drive the plant’s response to a wide array of viral and bacterial pathogens, so that when a glyphosate-treated plant stops producing these amino acids, opportunistic pathogens run amok and kill the now-defenseless plants.

Glyphosate safety

When glyphosate was first introduced to the market in the 1970s, scientists generally believed that the herbicide would not be toxic to mammals since they do not have this biochemical pathway. The shikimate pathway is central to survival for plants, but not people, so it seemed plausible at the time that human risks would be minimal.
But in recent years it has become clear that bacteria also depend on the shikimate pathway.

The role of gut bacteria

Recent science has changed how both scientists and doctors view the importance of bacteria in sustaining good health in humans. For example, we now know that human bodies contain more than 10 times more bacterial cells than human cells. These bacteria are involved in many biological functions in our bodies including immunity, intestinal repair, detoxification, and production of many vitamins.
Could disruption of intestinal bacteria play a role in the rise of certain childhood illnesses?
Scientific studies indicate that gut bacteria play a central role in immunity,[16] obesity,[17] diabetes,[18] asthma,[19] food allergies,[20] inflammatory bowel disease,[21] mental health,[22] and behavior.[23]
Autistic spectrum disorder warrants special consideration. Many authors argue that the number of cases is truly on the rise,[24] and not simply a result of increasing recognition and diagnosis. The links between behavioral disturbances and changes in human gut bacterial populations are compelling, and most autistic children have serious gastrointestinal disturbances that correlate with their behavioral issues.[25] This is why many scientists see an urgent need for careful research on the impacts of glyphosate exposures on intestinal disruption and neurocognitive changes.
One study suggests that glyphosate might play a disruptive role in the intestines of certain farm animals.[26] Although it was carried out using large doses of glyphosate in petri dishes, not in actual animals, it does add to the concerns regarding the safety of glyphosate in our food supply.

Transgenic material

GE food manufacturing ingredients and animal feeds are ubiquitous in the US food supply. However, they may not contribute significant quantities of GE proteins because food manufacturing processes used to convert corn kernels, soybean seeds and canola seeds into usable products typically start to break down the GE proteins in the raw commodities.
Let’s take the example of corn: the most common type of corn grown by farmers – US #2 yellow field corn – usually contains intact, GE, protein-based Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins in the kernels at the time a field is harvested. However, the vast majority of that crop is not ingested directly by consumers: 40% is used to make ethanol, and another 40% (or slightly less) is fed to animals. Most of the remaining 20% is extensively processed. Food processing and animal digestive systems typically break down the Bt toxins into smaller fragments, about which, admittedly, relatively little is known.
For these reasons, US consumers have actually not been ingesting significant quantities of GE proteins in their intact forms. Even this, however, is beginning to change. Sweetcorn engineered to express two Bt toxins and resist glyphosate herbicide has been on the market for two years. An active 12-year old at a summer picnic who eats two ears of this Bt sweetcorn will ingest a far higher dose of relatively intact Bt toxins than ever before.

Are these foods safe?

Most feeding studies on which US regulatory agencies base their assessment that GE foods are safe were conducted for 2 or 3 months on rats.[27] The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require any studies, and regulatory “consultations” are voluntary and focused simply on whether a new GE food is “substantially equivalent” in terms of composition and nutrient content to its non-engineered “isoline.” (The isoline of a GE corn, for instance, is the same variety of that corn before it was genetically altered using transgenic techniques.)
A series of reports dating back to the 1990s issued by the National Academy of Sciences called upon the FDA and other government agencies, as well as the biotechnology and food industries to develop more sensitive testing protocols in order to detect the possibly adverse impacts of subtle changes in the proteins produced in GE plants. Applying the data requirements and risk assessment tools used to test herbicides and food additives to GE foods makes about as much sense as officiating an NFL football game with the rule book governing a chess tournament.
Scientists (even within the FDA[28]) have called for longer-term studies to be performed and have expressed concern that the American public is basically now functioning as one large “experimental group.” Most of the half-dozen, well-designed long-term, GE-food feeding studies published in respected, peer-reviewed journals have reported at least some worrisome findings, often involving adverse impacts on the liver, kidneys, or lymphatic system. Despite these findings, there have been few follow-up studies, and the list of lingering concerns has grown steadily over the past decade.[29],[30],[31]
Concerns over the possible impact of GE protein-breakdown products in food, animal feed, and our bodies have grown more pressing as a result of the trend in the biotechnology seed industry to “stack” more than one GE trait in a given commercial variety. For example, most GE corn seed sold today expresses at least three traits (usually two Bts and one for glyphosate resistance), with one popular GE corn called SmartStax expressing eight (six Bts and two for herbicide tolerance). The serious concerns that persist over the safety of all individual GE crop traits now on the market become even more pressing when considering our lack of knowledge regarding the ways in which the multiple GE traits and proteins in GE corn behave and interact.
The FDA has adopted the position that if each GE-corn trait produces corn that is “substantially equivalent,” and presumably safe, then any combination of any number of previously reviewed traits must also be safe. For a science-based agency with 60 years’ experience studying drug interactions and issuing warnings about them, to simply assume that such interactions cannot occur with multiple GE traits and proteins in GE corn is an enormous leap of faith.

Conclusion

There has been too little research on the effects of foods from GE organisms on children’s health. So far, the possibility that glyphosate affects health by disrupting gut bacteria has been studied in chickens, with worrisome results,[32] but not in human children. Recently approved GE foods will expose consumers to a larger quantity of transgenic proteins. As a society, we owe it to our kids to carry out a more methodical, careful approach to introducing elements into their diets that could have adverse effects on their health and safety.
© 2015 GMO Science. All Rights Reserved

References

  1. Bethell CD, Kogan MD, Strickland BB, Schor EL, Robertson J, Newacheck PW. 2011. A national and state profile of leading health problems and health care quality for US children: key insurance disparities and across-state variations. Acad Pediatr. May-Jun;11(3 Suppl):S22-33.
  2. Linabery AM, Ross JA. 2008. Trends in childhood cancer incidence in the U.S. (1992-2004). Cancer. Jan 15;112(2):416-32.
  3. Radhakrishnan DK, Dell SD, Guttmann A, Shariff SZ, Liu K, To T. 2014. Trends in the age of diagnosis of childhood asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. Nov;134(5):1057-62.e5.
  4. Devereux G. 2006. The increase in the prevalence of asthma and allergy: food for thought. Nat Rev Immunol. Nov;6(11):869-74.
  5. Lipman TH, Levitt Katz LE, Ratcliffe SJ, Murphy KM, Aguilar A, Rezvani I, Howe CJ, Fadia S, Suarez E. 2013. Increasing incidence of type 1 diabetes in youth: twenty years of the Philadelphia Pediatric Diabetes Registry. Diabetes Care. Jun;36(6):1597-603.
  6. Malaty HM, Fan X, Opekun AR, Thibodeaux C, Ferry GD. 2010. Rising incidence of inflammatory bowel disease among children: a 12-year study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. Jan;50(1):27-31.
  7. Halfon N, Houtrow A, Larson K, Newacheck PW. 2012. The changing landscape of disability in childhood. Future Child. Spring;22(1):13-42.
  8. Hertz-Picciotto I, Delwiche L. 2009. The rise in autism and the role of age at diagnosis. Epidemiology. Jan;20(1):84-90.
  9. Grocery Manufacturers’ Association position on GMOs: http://factsaboutgmos.org/disclosure-statement.
  10. Agodi A, Barchitta M, Grillo A, Sciacca S. 2006. Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in milk from the Italian market. Int J Hyg Environ Health. Jan;209:81-8.
  11. USDA Economic Research Service. 2015. Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the United States, 1996-2015, Recent trends in GE adoption. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx#.VDljjLvVLRc.
  12. Grube A DD, Kiely T, and Wu L. : Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage, 2006 and 2007 Market Estimates, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 733-R-11-001, 34 p. Access at: http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/07pestsales/market_estimates2007.pdf 2011.
  13. Service. USDoANAS: Agricultural Chemical Usage – Field Crops and Potatoes. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1560 (multiple years).
  14. Mesnage R, Bernay B, Séralini GE. 2013. Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity. Toxicology. Nov 16; 313(2-3):122-8.
  15. Duke SO, Powles SB. 2008. Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manag Sci. Apr;64(4):319-25.
  16. Cho I, Blaser MJ. 2012. The human microbiome: at the interface of health and disease. Nat Rev Genet. Mar 13;13(4):260-70.
  17. Zhao L. 2013. The gut microbiota and obesity: from correlation to causality. Nat Rev Microbiol, Sep;11(9):639-647.
  18. Endesfelder D, zu Castell W, Ardissone A, Davis-Richardson AG, Achenbach P, Hagen M, Pflueger M, Gano KA, Fagen JR, Drew JC, Brown CT, Kolaczkowski B, Atkinson M, Schatz D, Bonifacio E, Triplett EW, Ziegler AG. 2014. Compromised gut microbiota networks in children with anti-islet cell autoimmunity. Diabetes. Jun;63(6):2006-14.
  19. See reference 3 above
  20. Round JL and Mazmanian SK. 2009. The gut microbiota shapes intestinal immune responses during health and disease. Nat Rev Immunol. May; 9(5):313-23.
  21. Kostic AD, Xavier RJ, Gevers D. 2014. The microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease: current status and the future ahead. Gastroenterology. May;146(6):1489-99.
  22. Hsiao EY, McBride SW, Hsien S, Sharon G, Hyde ER, McCue T, Codelli JA, Chow J, Reisman SE, Petrosino JF, Patterson PH, Mazmanian SK. 2013. Microbiota modulate behavioral and physiological abnormalities associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Cell. Dec 19;155(7):1451-63.
  23. Hsiao EY, McBride SW, Hsien S, Sharon G, Hyde ER, McCue T, Codelli JA, Chow J, Reisman SE, Petrosino JF, Patterson PH, Mazmanian SK. 2013. Microbiota modulate behavioral and physiological abnormalities associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Cell. Dec 19;155(7):1451-63.
  24. Hertz-Picciotto I, Delwiche L. 2009. The rise in autism and the role of age at diagnosis. Epidemiology. Jan;20(1):84-90.
  25. Mulle JG, Sharp WG, Cubells JF. 2013. The Gut Microbiome: A New Frontier in Autism Research. Curr Psychiatry Rep. Feb;15(2): 337.
  26. Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Aldin AA, Hafez HM, Krüger M. 2013. The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro. Curr Microbiol. Apr;66(4):350-8.
  27. Domingo JL, Giné Bordonaba J. 2011. A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environ Int. May;37(4):734-42.
  28. Louis J. Pribyl, Ph.D., scientist in the FDA’s Microbiology Group in a February 1992 memo, “There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in this document…”Linda Kahl, Ph.D., FDA compliance officer, January, 1992 memo, “There is no data that could quantify risk” (regarding GE crops).
    E.J. Matthews, Ph.D., FDA Toxicology group, October 1991 memo, “genetically modified plants could also contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.”
    Quoted in Roseboro K. 2011. FDA ignored own scientists’ warnings about GM foods, http://www.nongmoreport.com/articles/october2011/FDAignoredscientistswarningsGMfoods.php#sthash.ErX2vAdm.dpuf
  29. Netherwood T, Martin-Orue SM, O’Donnell AG, Gockling S, Graham J, Mathers JC, Gilbert HJ. 2004. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nat Biotechnol. 22(2):204-9.
  30. Mesnage R, Arno M, Costanzo M, Malatesta M, Séralini GE, Antoniou MN. 2015. Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure. Environ Health. 2015 Aug 25;14(1):70.
  31. Mesnage R, Defarge N, Spiroux de Vendômois J, Séralini GE. 2015. Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits. Food Chem Toxicol. [Epub ahead of print]
  32. Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Aldin AA, Hafez HM, Krüger M. 2013. The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro. Curr Microbiol. Apr;66(4):350-8.

Related Posts

Bt and GMOs

Introduced into our food supply without study or accountability, limited data shows significant evidence of inflammation and health harm.

read more
Farming without Herbicides

Farming without Herbicides

GMOs have failed as a technology as the constant use of herbicides as the only weeding strategy has caused the development of many species of herbicide-tolerant super seeds. The response has been to genetically modify more crops to be tolerant of multiple toxic herbicides. This has dramatically increased the use of these pesticides with all their adverse health and environmental outcomes.

read more

Action Items

Regulatory Oversight

 Enhanced Regulations:

  • The FDA and other regulatory bodies must establish stricter guidelines and permissible limits for toxic metals in infant formula. This action has been already put into our place since our meeting with the FDA prior to the release of our data reported in this blog by Moms Across America.

Regular Testing:

  • Mandatory, routine testing for heavy metals in all infant formula products should be enforced to ensure compliance with safety standards.

Transparent Reporting:

  • Companies should be required to disclose test results publicly, promoting transparency and accountability.

Proactive Measures by Companies

Sourcing and Production Controls:

  • Infant formula manufacturers must implement rigorous controls over their raw materials and production processes to minimize contamination.

Regular Audits:

  • Frequent internal and third-party audits should be conducted to ensure adherence to safety protocols and identify potential sources of contamination.

Research and Development:

  • Investment in research to develop technologies and methods for removing or reducing heavy metal content in infant formulas.

Remediation Solutions

Advanced Filtration Systems:

  • Implementing advanced filtration technologies during production to remove toxic metals.

Ingredient Substitution:

  • Identifying and using alternative, less contaminated sources of raw materials.

Chelating Agents:

  • Exploring the use of safe chelating agents that can bind to metals, making them less bioavailable and reducing their toxic effects.

What the Data Means to Moms

For mothers and caregivers, these findings can be alarming. However, it is essential to understand the implications and take informed steps to ensure the safety of their infants. Breastfeeding remains the best option for infant nutrition, when possible, as it naturally minimizes exposure to contaminants.

Recommendations Based on Data

Prioritize Breastfeeding:

  • Whenever possible, opt for breastfeeding to provide the safest and most natural nutrition for your baby.

Choose Carefully:

  • When breastfeeding is not an option, select infant formulas that have been independently tested and verified for low levels of toxic metals.
  • Maximize moms’ diet utilizing organic regenerative whole foods, including an array of fermented foods, filtered water, and nutritional supplements, such as prenatal vitamins and probiotics.

Stay Informed:

  • Keep abreast of the latest research and reports on infant formula safety to make informed decisions.

Advocate for Change:

  • Support initiatives and petitions calling for stricter regulations and safer infant formula products. (See the end of this article for a petition/call-to-action.)

Sample Considerations

The recommendations based on our findings proved challenging since all formulas tested positive for aluminum and lead. Other difficult considerations were based on the fact that not all metals are equally toxic and it is unclear whether having more metals at lower amounts was more toxic than fewer metals with higher amounts. The literature did not prove helpful in this regard.

Hence, the best attempts were made to offer advice for concerned parents based on this one study of toxic metals without other concomitant toxicants studied. A scorecard was designed, rating the formulas from 1 – 3, with 1 being the best based on 5 toxic metals studied and without consideration of other factors. The formulas were chosen for lowest levels of lead, mercury and cadmium. Lower levels of aluminum were considered since they all tested positive. There were no ideal formulations, and the recommendations were based on the 20 tested. There were differences in the two samples of the same formula which may not be statistically significant.

Overall formula recommendations:1

  1. Similac Sensitive infant formula
  2. Kirkland ProCare Non-GMO infant formula – NOTE: My top choice factoring in other contaminants/pesticides
  3. PurAmino hypoallergenic powder infant formula (For babies with digestive issues requiring predigested formulas)

Formula recommendations:2

  1. Gerber Good Start Gentle Pro
  2. Earth’s Best Organic Sensitivity Formula

Formula recommendations:3

  1. Enfamil Sensitive Infant Formula
  2. Similac Total Comfort Infant Formula
  3. Up & Up Gentle Premium Powder Infant Formula
  4. Up & Up Non-GMO Hypoallergenic Powder Infant Formula
  5. Enfamil Plant-Based Soy Powder Infant Formula

Strategic Recommendations

Targeted Research

Understand Contamination Sources:

  • Conduct further research to understand the sources of metal contamination in infant formulas, including soil contamination with pesticides, water used in manufacturing, and packaging materials.

Long-Term Health Impacts:

  • Investigate the long-term health impacts of chronic exposure to low levels of these metals in infants.

Consumer Guidance

Interpreting Lab Results:

  • Educate parents on how to interpret lab results and select formulas with the lowest possible contamination levels.

Support Safe Feeding Practices:

  • Provide resources and support for parents to transition to safer feeding practices, whether through breastfeeding support or safer formula alternatives.

Enhanced Testing Protocols

Rigorous Testing:

  • Mandate formula manufacturers to adopt more rigorous testing protocols, including testing for a broader range of contaminants and more frequent testing intervals.

Standardized Procedures:

  • Advocate for standardized testing procedures across the industry to ensure consistency and reliability in reported results.

Supply Chain Transparency

Transparency:

  • Push for greater transparency in the supply chain of infant formula ingredients.
  • This includes sourcing, production processes, and quality control measures.

Traceability:

  • Implement traceability measures to identify and mitigate contamination sources promptly.

Policy and Advocacy

Environmental Contamination:

  • Support policy initiatives aimed at reducing environmental contamination, as many of these metals enter the food chain through polluted air, water, and soil.

International Cooperation:

  • Advocate for international cooperation to address the global nature of food safety, as ingredients are often sourced from multiple countries.

Summary

The presence of toxic metals in infant formula is a critical issue that demands immediate action.

Public education is crucial to raise awareness among parents and caregivers about the potential risks and safety measures. Regulatory action by Congress is necessary to empower the FDA and other agencies to enforce stringent safety standards. Additionally, formula companies must take corrective actions to ensure their products are safe.

To address this issue, we are initiating a petition to urge Congress to remove any barriers preventing the FDA from enforcing these necessary regulations. In the meantime, parents can consider various supplements that may help offset the toxicity, although this should be done in consultation with healthcare professionals.

By working together—regulators, companies, and consumers—we can ensure that infant formula products are safe and healthy for our most vulnerable population, our babies.

Our Petition:

Please cut and paste this letter, add 1-3 sentences at the top to personalize it and increase the chances of it being read, and send it directly to your Senator and Representative today!

Find your Senator and Representatives’ emails and telephone numbers here.

Dear Senator_____ or Representative _______,

I am writing to ask for your support in making baby food and formula safer for our babies. Will you support the Baby Food Safety Act of 2024 and insist that baby formula is included? Please authorize the FDA with the ability to do their job and protect human health. Baby formula is often the ONLY food a baby consumes for the first six months of their lives and must be monitored for heavy metals. Our babies ARE our future and they are the most vulnerable. If swift action is not taken, babies from both sides of the aisle will continue to be severely impacted and their mental, physical, and reproductive health issues will affect the future of America.

GMOScience and The New MDS, Moms Across America, a national educational nonprofit dedicated to empowering mothers and others to create healthy families and communities, today announces the results of testing for five toxic metals in 20 infant formula products. Samples included organic as well as non-organic and plant-based as well as animal product formulas sold by four of the major producers of infant formula in the United States and across the globe. Two samples of each product were tested, for a total of 40 samples.

Concerning findings include:

  • 100% of the 40 samples tested contained aluminum and lead.
  • 57% of the samples tested positive for arsenic, 55% for mercury, and 35% for cadmium.
  • Six of the 20 formulas were positive for all five toxic metals in both samples.
  • At 41,000 ppb, aluminum levels in a goat’s milk baby formula were 4000 – 40,000x higher than other metals in the formulas tested and exceed limits set by the FDA for maximum safety level of aluminum for a preemie.
  • Levels of mercury in four samples measured above the limit allowed by the FDA in drinking water.
  • Levels of cadmium in both samples of one formula were nearly twice the level allowed in drinking water.

The FDA concluded many years ago that babies and young children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of food contaminants because of their small bodies and rapid cellular growth. In 1962, the FDA launched the Total Diet Study, recently published in July, 2002, analyzing 910 foods, including only four infant formulas. Two of the four formulas contained toxic metals, including uranium. In April 2021, the FDA announced its “Closer to Zero” plan, wherein it committed to proposing allowable levels of lead in various baby foods by April 2022, levels of inorganic arsenic by April 2024, and cadmium and mercury sometime after 2024. None of those deadlines, however, have been met, and all of them have been removed from the Closer to Zero website.

To date, the only actionable limits the agency has set are for one toxic metal only (inorganic arsenic) in one type of baby food product (infant rice cereal).

Citing findings of nearly 400 childhood lead poisoning cases in fall 2023 linked to recalled cinnamon applesauce pouches. A coalition of 20 Attorneys General led by New York’s Attorney General Letitia James issued a letter to the FDA on February 15 of this year to call on the federal agency to protect babies and young children in the United States from lead and other toxic metals in baby food. That letter followed an October 2021 petition and subsequent June 2022 petition, asking the FDA to issue specific guidance to the baby food industry to require testing of all finished food products for lead and other toxic metals.

It has been over two years! Action must be taken now!

Moms Across America, GlyphosateFacts, and GMOScience presented the new baby formula test results and science from Stephanie Seneff and others in meetings with congressional representatives and the FDA in Washington, DC from April 29 to May 2. They were informed by Jim Jones, Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods at the FDA, that the agency is waiting for Congress to pass legislation that would mandate testing for lead and other harmful chemicals in food. On May 9, US lawmakers introduced the Baby Food Safety Act of 2024, which, with Congressional approval, would allow the FDA to regulate and enforce limits on levels of heavy metals found in baby food and potentially formula.

Please support the Baby Food Safety Act of 2024 and insist that baby formula is added to the bill so that the FDA may regulate and monitor levels of heavy metals in both baby food and baby formula.

Thank you.

Signed with Gratitude,

Your constituent __________________

References:

  1. https://www.fda.gov/food/resources-you-food/infant-formula#oversee
  2. https://www.fda.gov/food/resources-you-food/infant-formula
  3. https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/handling-infant-formula-safely-what-you-need-know
  4. https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/agricultural-biotechnology
  5. https://www.fda.gov/food/people-risk-foodborne-illness/food-safety-infants-toddlers
  6. https://www.fda.gov/food/infant-formula-guidance-documents-regulatory-information/enforcement-discretion-manufacturers-increase-infant-formula-supplies#regular
  7. https://www.fda.gov/media/71695/download?attachment
  8. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=53106
  9. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Kennedy-40/publication/333582853_Environmental_toxicants_and_infant_mortality_in_America_Peertechz_Journal_of_Biological_Research_and_Development_11_36-61/links/5d111f6592851cf440492ee1/Environmental-toxicants-and-infant-mortality-in-America-Peertechz-Journal-of-Biological-Research-and-Development-11-36-61.pdf
  10. unsafe at any level
  11. https://reneedufault.com/
  12. https://gmoscience.org/
  13. https://www.momsacrossamerica.com/
  14. https://www.ewg.org/research/ewgs-guide-infant-formula-and-baby-bottles
  15. https://www.inonaround.org/baby-formula/
  16. https://projecttendr.thearc.org/
  17. https://hbbf.org/
  18. https://www.hbbf.org/solutions/healthy-baby-foods
  19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4415012/: Developmental pesticide exposure reproduces features of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
  20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8871549/:Prenatal Mercury Exposure and Neurodevelopment up to the Age of 5 Years: A Systematic Review
  21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5461492/:Fetal and postnatal metal dysregulation in autism
  22. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1764574/:Lead and mercury exposures: interpretation and action

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/WheatPostharvestChemicalUseFactSheet.pdf

Related Posts