Healthy Food, Healthy Children

Michelle Perro, MD
Published: January 31, 2018

In order to reverse the current health crisis affecting children, we need to rethink our relationship with food and the type of medicine we support, says Professor Vincanne Adams.
Vincanne Adams, PhD is professor of medical anthropology at the University of California, San Francisco. Her research interests include the social studies of science, medicine, politics, and culture, and she has worked in Nepal, Tibet, China and the US. Together with a pediatrician, Michelle Perro, MD, she has written a book, What’s Making Our Children Sick? How Industrial Food is Causing and Epidemic of Chronic Illness, and What Parents (and Doctors) Can Do About It, which is available from Amazon.
The book traces the rise of chronic disease in a growing number of children and adults and places much of the blame on industrially produced food, including genetically modified (GM) crops and their associated pesticides. It also explains simple measures that we can all take to restore ourselves and our families to good health.
GMOScience asked Professor Adams what led her to write the book and how working on it has impacted her life.
Q: Why did you write this book?
When I first met Michelle and began to hear about her medical practices and theories of genetically modified (GM) foods in relation to gut health, I was fascinated. Her work touched on many aspects of the work I had done as a medical anthropologist. This included exploring how non-Western medical systems paid more attention to food and ecosystem-wide, holistic approaches to health. I had been writing and teaching for many years about the politics of science, the outsized role of pharmaceutical companies in medical research and clinical care, and how corporations and corporate influences directly and indirectly harm health. I’m trained as an ethnographer, so I’ve devoted my life to writing about the human effects of larger social and structural problems.
I have to confess that when I first heard Michelle talk about GM foods, I was, like many people, quite skeptical. So even though much of what she described in relation to her clinical practices and her perspectives on the failure of modern medicine to deal with chronic diseases was familiar, I was not sure of the science behind the GM food controversy. I started to explore more and to follow her lead into the literature, getting beyond the first layers of controversy. I was amazed at the way these formed a cataclysm of different problems: the failure of modern medicine to take food seriously, the problem of a rise in many chronic health problems, the holes in our regulatory system when it came to food safety and, of course, the controversy over GM foods.
Initially I thought it would be amazing to write a book about Michelle and her integrative practice. Her stories were fascinating and compelling. When I learned that she had for many years wanted to write a book herself, I decided it would be better to write a book together. It has been a great experience learning how to be a collaborator on such a project. It is part description of Michelle’s work and part critical interrogation of the predicament we face today in the face of industrial food.
For my part, I worked hard over the next years to learn as much as possible about the controversial science around GM foods, the empirical evidence on their safety, and the policies and regulatory environments of agroindustrial foods. As a committed ethnographer, I went with Michelle to meetings of organic and non-organic food industry advocates and to conferences of GM food proponents and critics. I read as much of the science as I could. I interviewed physicians and scientists about the phenomena that Michelle had identified. I shadowed Michelle in her clinical practice and together we interviewed her patients so that I could better understand the human and clinical story behind her ideas about these food-health connections. All this information has been collected in the book.
Q: Can you tell us something about how the book turned out and who it is aimed at?
The book offers original materials that connect the dots of our contemporary situation. Beyond the clinical cases, our book maps out the larger contexts and circumstances that have made these foods problematic. It covers how and why medicine tends to seek pharmaceutical over food-based health solutions; how new biomedical research on things like the microbiome, leaky gut or dysbiosis are still a long way from being incorporated into standard practice guidelines and how integrative doctors are breaking the mold; how agrocorporate investments in scientific research have made it hard for insights about the potential harms of GM foods and their associated pesticides to reach the light of day; and how we might think of a future medicine in relation to our ecosystem health – what we call ‘ecomedicine’. I am as much an activist about these problems as I am a documentarian.
Michelle and I had to make the book both convincing and scientifically sound yet at the same time legible and accessible to a wide public. The case studies from Michelle’s clinical work make the book very readable. Also, the case studies describe health problems that are currently suffered by a large number of people, such as allergies, gut problems, and behavioural disorders, so many readers will see their own experiences reflected in the patients’ stories.
All in all, I think that this book is written for a broad audience while not compromising on the quality of scholarship. I hope my academic colleagues will not only find it compelling and convincing but also that they will teach with it and share it with their networks.
Q: Was there anything that stood out or surprised you when you did your research for the book?
One of the things that surprised me about this project was how convinced I became that GM foods and their associated pesticides were a problem. When I began, I honestly didn’t initially think GM foods were as big a problem as Michelle and others made them out to be. However, the more I learned about the theories of chronic illness that were being talked about in the integrative medical world and the amazing assault-like campaigns to dismiss concern over these food technologies, the more I was convinced.
If I had to pick one most surprising insight about this work, however, it would be the degree to which attacks on scientific credibility have not only defined the work on this area, but also penetrated into the communities of opposition to GM foods. So in the first place, the ways in which the agrochemical industries have tried to silence anyone writing against these technologies, going way beyond simple questioning of the science to full blown character assassination, is to my mind evidence of their suspicion that the existing science alone is not convincing enough. Industry’s and industry-paid spokespersons’ steadfast and persistent campaigns to evade criticism and even questioning of the risks are stunning. At the same time, I’ve noticed that similar critiques of “the science” have trickled down into communities that are opposed to GM foods (based on evidence and not simply on politics). I find this fascinating.
Q: Have you made any changes in your own life (diet, etc) as a result of what you learned when writing this book?
Well, although I always felt that organic foods were probably better for me, I never really thought that eating non-organic was potentially dangerous. But now I certainly try to eat only organic. It is clear that harm from foods functions as more of a ‘carrying capacity’ or ‘toxic load’ issue than a straight ‘eat-this-and-you die’ set of measures. Even so, I pay more attention to gut health in general now.
Working on this book has also shifted my perspective on population health and my vision of a society whose health is impaired, or at least less than robust, for the simple reason that our nutrition is compromised. It starts with a variety of things that compromise gut health, from antibiotics to toxicants in the built environment (such as chemicals used in building materials and soft furnishings) and in body and hygiene products, and extends also to the health of the foods we eat. Going beyond the normal culprits like packaged and processed foods, how healthy are our real foods? Then, we need to talk about toxicants like pesticides in our foods, and foods that have been turned into pesticides via genetic modification. We really don’t know much about these in terms of their safety for humans but we have a considerable body of research based on animal studies that is pointing to risks.
Problems of gut health and compromised food systems don’t work to create acute health crises; rather they produce a slow-building low-grade set of chronic problems in the gut that work their way outward to the skin, the immune system, and the brain. Nearly everyone is dealing with some level of problem on this front, I find. Some are more extreme cases than others. When I began to notice this, I sort of panicked and realized that we need an “all hands on deck” approach to solving these problems. We are, as Michelle says, facing a generational crisis of failing health. Our kids are the canaries in the coal mine in this growing epidemic. Food is not the only reason our kids are sick with more chronic conditions than ever before, but it is perhaps the most important piece of the puzzle.
Q: Is there anything else you wish to say?
The problems we are facing in relation to the impacts of GM agroindustrial food technologies are not going to be solved by individuals changing their diets, although the market forces that could drive change should not be overlooked. These problems occur on multiple levels and in ways that require change in relation to policy, research, market systems and governance. We need to change both our concept of public health and the kind of medicine we practice. On top of this, we need to think about how planetary survival really may depend on organic solutions – the opposite of what GM food scientists and agrochemical companies have been saying for several decades. My hope is that this book will help people think about how a healthy body is really only possible in a healthy food environment. In order to bring that about, we need to rethink our paradigms about the relationships between health and food, food and soil, and our bodies and society, or what we call ecomedicine.
What’s Making Our Children Sick? How Industrial Food Is Causing an Epidemic of Chronic Illness, and What Parents (and Doctors) Can Do About It, by Michelle Perro, MD, and Vincanne Adams, PhD, is published by Chelsea Green and available from Amazon:

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