topic Baby Food(s) Test Positive for Arsenic, Lead and BPA in Community Chat

Baby Food(s) Test Positive for Arsenic, Lead and BPA

momtochloe — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:58:03 GMT

This is the article from USA Today. Many of the worst offenders are the largest brands: Gerber, Enfamil, Plum Organics and Sprout:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/25/these-baby-foods-and-formulas-tested-positive-arsenic-lead-and-bpa-new-study/794291001/

Terrible, just terrible.

Re: Baby Food(s) Test Positive for Arsenic, Lead and BPA

Annabellethecat66 — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:06:21 GMT

There wasn't anything on TV about this that I've heard!

Did I miss something? Why aren't they (someone) shouting this from the roof tops? Good grief!

Re: Baby Food(s) Test Positive for Arsenic, Lead and BPA

SahmIam — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:26:29 GMT

You have to look at the verbiage very carefully that is used through-out this article. Understand that nowhere does it say that poisons were placed into the food (the Advil pill poisoning from long ago, for example) but that many of these toxins are "natural" and the reasons why. Also, the FDA does not enforce the 2016 guidelines that were set in place regarding toxic ingredients in babyfood.

This isn't something new....and I don't believe it will end either. Pathetic, disgusting and...not surprising considering our food source today.

Re: Baby Food(s) Test Positive for Arsenic, Lead and BPA

dooBdoo — Fri, 03 Nov 2017 04:04:31 GMT

Before we assign credibility to studies that light up social media with alarming, stunning headlines, I hope everyone will check the background and reliability. Since this one wasn't published or peer-reviewed, it's impossible to know all the specifics. It's only the 2nd study the "Clean Label Project" has ever done, the first being a look at pet food. The documentation for the baby food information is so shoddy they used parts of the pet food study in their details. Remember, this is from the new baby food study being spread around the internet:

"...Instead of providing actual information, CLP rates each food or formula with an “easy-to-understand” star rating. They rank each product from 1-to-5 stars in four areas: Heavy Metals, Process Contaminants, Byproduct Contaminants, and Nutritional Superiority.

They don’t say which specific substances were found or the concentrations of each substance.

They don’t discuss the sensitivity of the equipment they use to analyze the products.

They don’t detail how they arrive at the star rating.

And when I clicked on “Nutritional Superiority” under the Similac Advance infant formula, this was the description:

“We know you want a quality, nutritious food for your dog or cat in addition to one that is low in industrial and environmental contaminants. While it’s always best to consult your veterinarian for your pet’s specific nutritional needs, we have created a system to help. Not all pet food ingredients are created equal– some products use preservatives, artificial colors or chemicals, while other products do not... ”

Obviously, they forgot to change this copy after the pet food study. ... "

And that's only a snapshot of the reasons to view this "study" with extreme skepticism -- there are plenty of problems, too numerous to post.

Just my opinion, but I think this study tells us nothing useful. The extremely detailed review I reference is here, but you can find others online if you don't like my source:

http:// www . chadhayesmd . com/the-clean-label-project-is-playing-dirty/ (remove spaces to use URL or search for: "The 'Clean Label Project' Is Playing Dirty")