Why is gerber baby food bad
Gerber Baby Food Lawsuits — Lawsuit Information Center
Current research and testing have shown that Gerber and other major brands of baby food contain dangerously high levels of toxic heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, and mercury. These harmful metals are well known to cause health complications and neurologic damage in developing children. The development of conditions such as ADHD and autism may be linked to the consumption of these toxic baby foods.
The product liability lawyers at Miller & Zois are currently seeking cases from children (and their parents) who consumed contaminated Gerber baby foods and were later diagnosed with neurologic health conditions such as autism or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD or ADHD).
RELATED POSTS:
Baby Food Autism Lawsuit
Class Action Lawsuits Over Toxic Metals in Baby Foods
Gerber Baby Food Found to Contain High Levels of Toxic Metals
Heavy metals like lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium are well known to be toxic to the human body. Many of them, such as lead and mercury, have been specifically linked to neurological problems in young children with developing brains. This is why keeping these metals away from children has been a major public health priority for many years. Unfortunately, recent research has shown that we may have actually been feeding these toxic metals to our children for years.
In 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy released a Staff Report entitled Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury (the “Staff Report”). The Staff Report detailed the Subcommittee’s findings from an investigation into claims that major baby foods like Gerber were being sold with high levels of toxic heavy metals. The Subcommittee investigation was based on lab test results and internal documents from baby food manufacturers.
The results of the investigation fully confirmed that Gerber and other commercial baby foods “are tainted with significant levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury.
” The Staff Report also noted that exposure to these contaminants is harmful to infant neurological development and brain function.
The Staff Report found unsafe levels of heavy metals in baby food products from 7 of the largest manufacturers in the U.S., including Gerber, which is the biggest baby food manufacturer in the world. The Staff Report details the levels of toxins found in the various food brands based on testing. The levels of toxic metals in Gerber were much lower compared to other major brands, but they were still well above the maximum safe levels set by the FDA.
(a) Arsenic Levels in Gerber Baby FoodOf all the toxin heavy metals covered by the Staff Report, arsenic is considered the most hazardous. In young children, exposure to arsenic is known to cause not only neurologic problems, but it can also damage the central nervous system.
Both the FDA and the EPA have set maximum safe arsenic levels for bottled water at 10 ppb.
The Staff Report found that Gerber baby food products used ingredients that contained over 90 ppb inorganic arsenic based on lab testing. This is 9 times the FDA maximum safe level.
Lead is considered the second most toxic of the heavy metals that are known to post a threat to human health. Lead exposure (even at small levels) is associated with a range of bad health outcomes, particularly neurologic and cognitive developmental issues in children.
The FDA’s maximum safe level for lead is 5 ppb in drinking water, 20 ppb in juice and 100 ppb in candy products. According to the Staff Report, Geber used ingredients in its baby food that tested as high as 48 ppb for lead.
(c) Mercury Levels in Gerber Baby FoodMercury ranks 3rd behind arsenic and lead in terms of the most harmful of the heavy metals featured in the Staff Report on baby foods. Studies have shown that pre-natal exposure to mercury can lead to adverse neurologic development.
More specifically, high blood levels of mercury in toddlers have been positively associated with “autistic behaviors.”
Mercury can be harmful even at extremely low levels. The FDA has capped the maximum safe level of mercury in drinking water at 2 ppb. The Staff Report does not contain information on the levels of mercury in Geber baby foods because the Subcommittee relied on information provided by Gerber. Gerber advised the committee that is does not test for mercury in its products.
(d) Cadmium Levels in Gerber Baby FoodCadmium ranks fourth on the list of hazardous toxic metals in baby foods. Cadmium exposure in children has been linked to lower IQ and the development of ADHD. The FDA has set the maximum safe limit for cadmium in drinking water at 5 ppb. The Staff Report found that Gerber baby food products containing carrots were contaminated with cadmium. Over 75% of Gerber’s carrot foods contained over 5 ppb cadmium and some contained up to 87 ppb.
The toxic health effects of heavy metals are well recognized, but a growing body of scientific research is beginning to specifically connect exposure to these materials to autism, ADD, and other neurologic disorders. A number of medical studies have identified a connection between regular exposure to heavy metals during gestation, infancy, and childhood and higher rates of autism.
A study published in 2014 looked at the impact of prenatal and early infancy exposures to mercury. The study concluded that mercury exposure resulted in a twofold increase in the risk of developing both autism or ADD. Three years later, a similar study on children in Korea found a similar association between mercury exposure and autism/ADD rates.
A possible connection between arsenic exposure and higher autism rates was identified in a meta-analysis study conducted by a research team at the University of Buffalo and published in 2019.
A more extensive study was published the following year which found the same positive association between autism and exposure to mercury, arsenic, and cadmium during infancy.
The Staff Report regarding heavy metals in baby foods like Gerber has led to a number of product liability lawsuits against Gerber by parents claiming that their children developed autism (or other disorders). These lawsuits are partly based on the findings in the Staff Report which clearly show that Gerber was aware of the fact that its baby food products contained heavy metals well above the maximum safe limits set by the FDA.
Since the Staff Report was published in February 2021, Gerber Products Company has been named as a defendant in a number of consumer class action and product liability lawsuits involving toxic metals in baby food products. Our firm is currently seeking Gerber toxic baby food lawsuits. Call today for a free consultation 800-553-8082.
Parents Erupt Over FDA Failure To Regulate Toxic Metals in Food
The Food and Drug Administration has yet to take any action, despite having spent three years quietly exploring the issue of toxic contaminants in food during the Trump administration.
“This is not a baby food problem. This is a food problem,” said Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund, which has lobbied for more regulation of heavy metals.
The congressional report, released earlier this month by a House Oversight Committee panel, found that four major baby food brands — Beech-Nut, Gerber, Earth’s Best Organic and HappyBABY — sold products that their own internal testing showed contained arsenic, lead and cadmium at levels far higher than what most health experts consider safe for infants.
In the days following the report, each of the baby food companies sought to reassure parents that their products are safe and that they follow very high standards for sourcing ingredients, but it’s done little to lessen the blowback.
Though in some cases the companies knew their ingredients contained elevated levels of heavy metals, the baby food makers at the center of the investigation weren’t violating any rules because the FDA has not set standards for most heavy metals in baby food.
The FDA, which has historically focused most of its attention on foodborne pathogens like Salmonella and Listeria, in 2017 launched a working group to look at heavy metals and other contaminants in food, cosmetics and supplements to little fanfare — a move that was partly a reaction to an EPA study from earlier that year that found food was a surprisingly significant source of lead exposure for young children.
A chart that was buried in supplementary material in the study showed that about half of blood lead exposure for most children between the ages of 1 and 6 comes from food. The next biggest contributors: soil and dust (including from lead-based paint), air and water.
Significant problem
It’s an important revelation because lead exposure remains a significant public health problem in the United States.
One study estimated that preventing all lead exposure in just the babies born in the year 2018, for example, would deliver $80 billion in societal benefits, in large part due to the increased earnings potential of children with higher IQs and fewer behavioral and health problems.
About two million children, or nearly 10 percent of all young kids, are estimated to consume more lead than the FDA’s current limit each day, according to the government’s own estimates.
Lead is among the best-known and best-studied neurotoxins, but arsenic, cadmium, and mercury are also routinely found in foods at low levels. As scientists have begun to better understand the health risks from long-term, low-level exposure, and labs have grown better at detecting contaminants at very low levels, more attention has turned to the food supply.
The issue has been on the FDA’s radar, but there have been no changes to any food standards.
Now, with the fresh public outrage over baby food, the Biden administration faces pressure to act, even as it is still without a nominee for FDA commissioner.
The agency, in a statement to POLITICO, said it is reviewing the congressional subcommittee’s baby food report.
“The FDA takes exposure to toxic elements in the food supply extremely seriously, especially when it comes to protecting the health and safety of the youngest and most vulnerable in the population,” an FDA spokesperson said in an email, noting that heavy metals are found throughout the environment. “Because they cannot be completely removed, our goal is to reduce exposure to toxic elements in foods to the greatest extent feasible and we have been actively working on this issue using a risk-based approach to prioritize and target the agency’s efforts.”
The FDA did not respond to the criticism that it’s been slow to act on the issue, but did acknowledge “that there is more work to be done.”
The reality is that concerning levels of lead, arsenic, mercury and cadmium can routinely be found in many foods, including rice, sweet potatoes, carrots, juices and spices.
The contamination is happening throughout the food supply — not just in baby food — which means that parents cannot avoid heavy metals simply by making their own food.
Crops pull up heavy metals from soil, where some of the metals are naturally occurring but much of the contamination stems from more than a century of pollution, from car exhaust to coal emissions and agricultural chemicals.
Emissions spread heavy metal particles through the air where they eventually settle into soil and water. In the early 20th century, it was common for farmers to use pesticides made with lead and arsenic, especially to grow cotton in the south. Heavy metals don’t degrade, which means crops grown decades later can absorb old contaminants through their roots.
“Parents can’t solve this problem by shopping in the produce aisle and not the baby food aisle,” said Jane Houlihan, research director at Healthy Babies Bright Futures, a nonprofit focused on reducing babies’ exposure to toxic chemicals.
“FDA has to take action.”
Small amounts
The good news is that the general population’s exposure to heavy metals has been going down over time,particularly after the government started phasing out leaded gasoline, paints and food cans in the 1970s, which led to a steep drop off in blood levels of lead in children. The bad news is that scientists have only recently come to better understand just how damaging heavy metals can be, particularly for babies and young children, even at very, very low levels.
Even exceedingly small amounts of these neurotoxins can impede a child’s IQ, hinder brain development, lead to behavioral problems, increase cancer risk, and raise the chances of many other diseases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, maintains there’s no known safe blood level of lead in children.
“What’s come into clearer view is that this is an urgent public health problem,” Houlihan said.
Right now, parents and other caretakers are essentially at the mercy of whatever standards baby food companies decide to set for themselves — and the extent to which they actually conduct their own tests and hold themselves to those internal standards.
Exactly how low the limit should be for heavy metals in baby food is a matter of debate, but public health advocates contend it should be as low as possible — and there is broad agreement that the few standards FDA currently has are not strict enough to protect babies and young children.
Back in 2013, FDA proposed a voluntary limit for inorganic arsenic in apple juice at 10 parts per billion and the agency has still not finalized the guidance more than seven years later.
Consumer Reports has since pushed for a limit of 3 ppb for all juices, arguing that the agency’s initial guidance — which companies tend to take seriously — was a step in the right direction, but didn’t do enough to mitigate the risk of developmental problems posed by arsenic exposure.
In 2016, the FDA, responding to outside pressure from Consumer Reports and others, set a voluntary limit for inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal at 100 ppb, but the agency set this level based on cancer risks and what was feasible for the industry at the time, not neurological development risks, which have been shown at much lower levels.
Public health advocates have urged the agency to lower this limit.
The agency has also been criticized for lax oversight. Independent tests have shown infant rice cereal makers sometimes sell products that exceed the standard with no repercussions.
Developmental harm
There are no federal standards for lead in baby food, but the FDA has set a 5 ppb lead standard for bottled water, 50 ppb for juice and 100 ppb for candy. By comparison, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a 1 ppb limit for school drinking fountains — a threshold that consumer advocates would like to see applied to juice, too.
Cadmium has received far less attention compared to other toxic metals like arsenic and lead, but it’s also prevalent in the food supply. FDA has no standards on cadmium in any foods. Consumer Reports has urged the agency to set a limit of 1 ppb for cadmium in fruit juice.
But heavy metals have prompted the greatest concern by far when found in baby food because infants and young children are the most vulnerable to developmental harm.
In 2017, the Environmental Defense Fund analyzed FDA’s own routine testing of the food supplyand found there were measurable lead levels in 20 percent of baby products tested.
The same year, a Colorado-based nonprofit called the Clean Label Project tested some 500 of the country’s best-selling baby foods — one the largest samples to date — and found that nearly 40 percent contained at least trace levels of one heavy metal and 25 percent contained all four, though overall the levels were relatively low.
The following year,Consumer Reports tested 50 popular baby food products and found two thirds contained “worrisome levels” of at least one heavy metal. They reported that 15 of the products tested would pose health risks to children if regularly consumed. Products containing rice and sweet potatoes were particularly likely to test positive. Organic products were just as likely to be contaminated as conventional products.
The House Oversight subcommittee got the idea to look into baby food afteranother report in 2019 by Healthy Babies Bright Futures, a nonprofit, tested nearly 170 products and found heavy metals present in 95 percent of their samples.
Most foods had relatively low levels, but there were product categories that showed higher levels, including lead in carrots and sweet potatoes and particularly arsenic in rice. Four of the seven infant rice cereals tested exceeded FDA’s voluntary limits for inorganic arsenic. The group is urging FDA to set standards for baby food, arguing that repeated exposure at very low levels adds up and poses health risks.
The congressional report this month was based on data that companies voluntarily turned over to the subcommittee. The report reveals that many of the ingredients and products that were tested by companies themselves contained heavy metals at levels that exceed even generous voluntary limits and even some companies’ own internal limits.
“Our worst fears were confirmed,” a senior Democratic committee aide told POLITICO.
It’s difficult to draw broad conclusions about the baby food supply from the report, since it’s not clear how often companies are testing or how much of their own data they turned over to the committee, but the data that were released show numerous examples of significant levels of heavy metals getting through the supply chain and onto store shelves.
For instance, HappyBABY, an organic baby food brand, sold products that tested positive for lead at levels as high as 641 ppb and arsenic as high as 180 ppb, nearly twice FDA’s limit for rice cereal. Nearly 20 percent of the company’s finished products contained over 10 ppb of lead, according to the committee.
In a statement to POLITICO, the company said the data presented in the report was based on “a small portion” of its portfolio and is “not representative generally of our entire range of products at-shelf today.”
“We are disappointed at the many inaccuracies, select data usage and tone bias in this report,” the company said in an email. “We can say with the utmost confidence that all Happy Family Organics products are safe for babies and toddlers to enjoy, and we are proud to have best-in-class testing protocols in our industry.”
Beech-Nut, which markets itself as a “real food” brand, used nearly 90 different ingredients that had tested positive for lead at more than 15 parts per billion, including cinnamon that had been shown to be as high as 886 parts per billion.
Beech-Nut Nutrition said the company is currently reviewing the congressional report and will continue to support setting “science-based standards that food suppliers can implement across our industry.”
“We want to reassure parents that Beech-Nut products are safe and nutritious,” the company said.
Industry standards
Most of the companies targeted by the subcommittee’s investigation, including Gerber and Hain Celestial, which makes Earth’s Best Organic,are part of a group called the Baby Food Council, a partnership with Cornell University and the Environmental Defense Fund toset industry standards for baby food. Three other leading companies didn’t turn over testing data to the committee.
Nonetheless, the findings of the congressional report sparked concern bordering on panic by many parents and other caretakers, especially a year into a pandemic that’s upended schools, jobs, childcare and family support for millions of families.
Emily Oster, a popular economist and author on parenting issues, wrote that she was inundated with so many emails from parents that she moved her weekly newsletter up a few days to help answer questions.
(She concluded that more rigorous government standards make sense and parents might consider cutting back on rice products, but should otherwise try not to worry about this too much.)
Moms flooded the social media pages of baby food brands with blistering anger. Some said they’d been in tears over the news, thinking they’d harmed their children. Several demanded to see testing results, threatened to sue, or said they were planning to take their children to the doctor to have their blood tested for heavy metals. Others said they were tossing out all their store bought food and boycotting the companies in the report.
“I have spent this last year home schooling and trying to figure [out] child care,” wrote one mom of three to Beech-Nut on the company’s Instagram page, who said her youngest had been born right at the start of the pandemic. “I have been worried sick that family would get sick. Now I learn I have something completely new to worry about.”
Every expert POLITICO interviewed for this story said it was unfortunate that parents might think they need to avoid all pre-made foods, particularly at such a stressful time.
The fact is that making baby food from scratch would probably not meaningfully reduce a child’s exposure to heavy metals. Digging deeper into the congressional report, it’s clear that many common ingredients can be contaminated and a caretaker has no way of knowing whether the sweet potatoes, kale and cinnamon in their own kitchen are any less contaminated than what baby food companies are sourcing.
The more fundamental issue, advocates say, is that there aren’t standards in place to pressure the supply chain to reduce exposure as much as possible.
“FDA has failed. They failed to set standards for baby food that companies have to meet. And they’ve failed to help, busy, sleep-deprived parents make better choices,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group.
“The idea that new parents are going to navigate this is insane,” he added. “We’re not all nutritionists and toxicologists.”
The House subcommittee that sparked the firestorm earlier this month is planning to do more oversight on baby food, a senior Democratic committee aide told POLITICO.
It makes sense to first focus on babies and small children because they are the most vulnerable to the developmental harm from heavy metals, the aide said.
“If you fail to address it here, there will be no broader action,” the aide said.
The subcommittee is working on a bill that would require FDA to come up with standards for heavy metals in baby foods and put in place testing requirements, among other things. Even if such a bill becomes law, it would likely take FDA several years to set such standards, if the agency’s past timelines are any indication.
“We don’t want to wait for that,” the committee aide said.
House Democrats are optimistic that the Biden administration will be open to working on this issue. One hopeful sign: Biden’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which sits atop FDA, is Xavier Becerra, the former attorney of California whoin 2018 sued two toddler milk companies over allegations they sold products with elevated levels of lead.
Becerra’s office alsorecently went after seafood companies for selling products contaminated with lead and cadmium.
Becerra’s crackdown on seafood processors reflects a recognition that toxic-metal contamination affects more than just baby food.
Practical steps
While parents await action from the FDA, there are some practical steps they can take to protect their children from elevated levels of metal contaminants, health and consumer advocates say: Avoid or limit rice products for infants and young children. Oatmeal infant cereal or other grain cereals, for example, can contain far less arsenic. Brown rice tends to contain higher levels of arsenic than white rice.
Rice puff and teether snacks appear to sometimes test at concerningly high levels of arsenic. Until more is known, it may make sense to swap in other snacks to cut back on potential exposure.
Parents can also cut back on juice, since apple and grape juice commonly contain low levels of arsenic and lead, and instead choose water or milk.
Certain vegetables like carrots and sweet potatoes, while healthy options overall, have been shown to contain more heavy metals than others, so serving a wide variety of vegetables is a good idea.
Pediatricians across the country, all of a sudden hounded by questions about heavy metal exposure, have tried to strike a balance for worried parents: Don’t panic. Focus on variety. The American Academy of Pediatricsreleased tips for parents, suggesting that they can also have their home water tested for heavy metals — in addition to making slight shifts in the diet — but ultimately: “Stronger rules and regulations for testing and limiting the amount of heavy metals in foods for babies and toddlers are most important.”
Phil Landrigan, a pediatrician and children’s health researcher at Boston College who played a crucial role in the government crackdown on lead decades ago, agrees that FDA action is urgently needed.
Ultimately, this is not a problem that should fall to caregivers to navigate, especially when low levels of these toxins have sweeping health consequences for future generations, he explained.
“Parents have done nothing wrong,” he said. “They’ve been hoodwinked by these companies and failed by their government.”
Harm of baby food in jars
Jars with ready-made puree surprise not only with high demand, but also with an assortment. Fruit, berry, vegetable, with meat, cereals, cream - under each brand there are dozens of items. In a previous publication, we talked in detail about 5 reasons for the popularity of baby puree in jars, and today we will consider the likely harm that such food can cause to a child's body.
Nutritionists, pediatricians and parents disagree on this issue. There are three strong arguments against portioned canned food.
Taste different from homemade food.
The difficulty of weaning a child from a homogeneous consistency.
Unpredictable quality.
How does baby food taste in jars?
Even if a characteristic pop is heard when opening the container, parents still have to taste the food they offer their child.
Many are surprised at how strange the content is. It is clear that most purees do not contain salt, sugar, flavoring additives. But they often turn out to be not just bland, but unnatural, too different from those that mothers cook on their own.
The reason for this is the merciless grinding and intense heat treatment that precedes vacuum packaging. However, it is very difficult to transfer a child from such refined food to a common family table. What will be the taste specificity of food in the first months of complementary foods will determine future preferences and the ability to organize healthy baby food at school age.
The child is too lazy to chew
Baby purees under different brands also differ in consistency. For example, it is convenient to scoop up meat and fish with a spoon, but some even at room temperature remain monolithic, as if fastened with starch. It is not easy to mix such a substance with potatoes or green vegetables.
You just have to cut it into pieces with a spoon. But in any case, the food in jars is crushed as much as possible and is a homogeneous mass.
It is good when feeding a baby up to a year old. But later, when enough teeth have erupted, the food should become coarser. Reasonable exercise is very important for the health of the gums and teeth. Ready-made vegetable puree in jars is easier for everyone: parents save time on cooking, and children save energy on chewing. As a result, it turns out that upon reaching the age of two, some kids refuse salads, normal soups, vegetable stews. They still demand to puree dishes, recognizing only the usual consistency.
Adults have many problems. There is not enough time and energy for endless persuasion, you won’t leave your beloved child hungry either, no tricks (decorating dishes, disguise) help. Whims at the table are dangerous. Even if the baby gives in under parental pressure, he has a great chance of choking, swallowing tears along with food.
Another difficulty is that a "homogeneous" diet will be limited. If you pass buckwheat with meat or baked potatoes with chicken through a blender, at the output we get a very viscous, thick mass - completely unappetizing. The habit of normal food sometimes comes only with admission to kindergarten.
You can switch from canned puree to homemade puree from 8-9 months. At first, mix, say, a “canned” zucchini with boiled, grated on a fine grater. Then increase your portion by decreasing the canned portion. This will take about a week. Then, according to the same principle, we grind part of the product on a medium-sized grater, closer to a year - on a large one, or simply knead it with a fork.
Do canned children pass high quality control?
They say that buckwheat is the only crop that has not yet been disfigured by genetic modification. Vegetables abound in various additives for rapid growth and disease resistance, and livestock that will become meat are laced with antibiotics and hormones.
It can be assumed that huge fields or modern farms have been set aside especially for our babies, where they grow ingredients for safe baby food. Those who have their own vegetable gardens know how high the price of a natural product really is, because time and effort are taken into account. And if you add the costs of marketing, packaging, transportation, salaries ... Belief in "eco", "organic", and "100% natural" is rapidly weakening.
And international canning scandals confirm that in a market economy, profit remains a priority. It is worth reading the labels carefully, control the cotton when unscrewing the lid, always mix the contents to make sure there are no foreign objects.
Baby food is harmful! On the dangers of certain types of baby food
At the bottom of the article are horrifying examples. And there were important clarifications in the comments. 12/05/2018.
1. Truths and lies about infant formula
Manufacturers advertise formula and complementary foods that their products have passed the highest quality standards.
But is it always like this?
We are assured that such and such mixtures practically do not differ from breast milk, and some even go so far as to start talking about the impact of bad ecology on breast milk. They say that the cows from whose milk mixtures are made breathe environmentally friendly air, unlike the inhabitants of the metropolis, so isn’t it better to pay money for the mixture than to feed yourself ...
But how much truth is there in all these arguments of financially interested manufacturers that commercially produced food for children undergoes such quality control that it turns out to be purer ... mother's milk?!
The theme of World Breastfeeding Week 1997 was "Breastfeeding the natural way". Here is the information (translated into Russian) circulated there about this difference between breast milk and formula:
“Baby food is a commercially produced food that undergoes multiple processing in the process of modifying and supplementing cow's milk and turning it into an enriched powder.
Not surprisingly, the danger of infection with harmful bacteria, radioactive and chemical substances, foreign bodies and insects has been proven. In addition, water, when mixed with powder, creates an additional risk of infection compared to breastfeeding.”
Breast milk is a living substance. Each woman's milk is individually produced for her own baby. What's more, her milk is constantly changing - both during one feeding and from day to day - to meet the needs of the child in development. When the mother is exposed to pathogens, she produces antibodies to fight them. Maternal antibodies come to the baby with her breast milk.
2. Horrifying examples:
1997 - United Kingdom: Milumil withdrawn from sale due to salmonella contamination.
1997 - USA: Nestlé formula was recalled by the Federal Drug and Food Administration due to adulteration and production under unsanitary conditions. Its use caused gastrointestinal disorders.
See even more valuable stuff in my Telegram! (completely new channel).
1996 - USA: Heinz baby apple and prune juice was recalled because it contained lead in excess of the legal limit.
1994 - SRI LANKA: Customs returned a large shipment of Nestle dry mix imported from Poland due to radioactive contamination!
1993 - USA: Nutramigen formula recalled after it was found to contain broken glass.
1993 - USA: Soyalac formula recalled due to salmonella contamination.
1992 - India: Live black insects and worms have been found in packages of the Lactogen mixture.
Industrial pollution means that toxic substances, including dioxins and biphenyls, are found in our food, in our bodies and in our environment. Due to their wide distribution, they are also found, along with other contaminants, in some samples of cow's milk and breast milk.
However, the benefits of breast milk far outweigh any possible risks, and recommends breastfeeding as the preferred alternative to any alternative.”
See even more valuable stuff in my Telegram! (completely new channel).
One might assume that 10 years have passed since 1997, and perhaps the general trends in the production of mixtures have changed. After all, do we really lie when they write about the safety of all these products for the health of our children? We open any children's magazine, and there we will certainly see soothing words about “the strictest control of suppliers and the quality of raw materials”, about “multi-level quality control of finished products” ...
Alas, during these ten years the manufacturers have made some progress, if only in the art of keeping silent about problems. Here are just some of the reasons for formula and baby food recalls around the world since 1997:
- Also in 1997, 2,141,880 Gerber jars of carrot complementary foods were recalled due to high levels of arsenic.
- In 1998, 25,760 Heinz cans of complementary foods were recalled due to high levels of lead.
- at 1999g. 126,456 cans of Heinz Broccoli, Carrot & Cheese baby food recalled due to solid plastic pieces in complementary foods.
- In 2000, after a long disregard for local health authorities, HiPP recalled its HA1 blend. The catastrophic excess of heavy metals in the mixture already sold led to the fact that the company received claims from several dozen parents whose children became disabled with kidney pathology.
- Various Mead Johnson formulas were recalled several times in 2001 due to packaging errors that labeled dairy-free products containing milk proteins. Considering that products with this label are bought specifically for children with allergies to milk proteins, one can only guess how many babies have suffered because of these mistakes.
- The year 2002 was rich in tragic cases due to the mistakes of the mixture manufacturers. Initially, 17,358 cans of Mead Johnson's Portagen formula were recalled because the mixture was contaminated with Enterbacter sakazakii, a bacterium that causes sepsis, meningitis and necrotizing enterocolitis in immunocompromised children. The reason for this particular recall was the death of a child due to an illness caused by the use of an infected formula.
Then, due to contamination with the same bacterium, several batches of a number of formulas under various names - a total of 1.5 million cans - were recalled by Wyeth Nutritionals.
- In 2003, Mead Johnson's EnfaCare Lipil formula is again recalled due to infection with the same bacteria!
- in 2003, a scandal broke out with the Remedia Super Soya 1 mixture, which was produced in Israel by the Humana company - an insufficient content of vitamin B1 caused the hospitalization of more than 20 children, and three babies died.
- In 2005 Ross Products' Similac iron mix - 82,986 cans - recalled due to active PVC content.
- In 2006, ready-to-use bottled formulas Similac (200,000 bottles) and Alimentum (100,000 bottles) from the same manufacturer were recalled. The reason was a deficiency of vitamin C, which could manifest itself in infants who consumed this mixture for more than 2-4 weeks.
So let's just be glad that we who are breastfeeding our babies don't have to play the gloomy lottery with our babies' health, not knowing what exactly can be in any of the purchased cans of industrial baby food .
