Thank you for putting into perspective a controversial topic. I would like to expand upon what your article hinted at towards the end. The important issues facing us now are not things like bottle versus breast feeding or even contaminated formula. A baby from an upper middle class household may or may not score a point higher on their SATs if they are breast fed, but in the grand scheme of things that will not matter. When we look at infant mortality rates in high income nations, we perform poorly. The reason why other nations do so much better than we do is because of access to appropriate resources like safe water, nutritious food, housing, access to healthcare, etc. As a country we need to focus on bigger issues that affect all of society. As the authors suggested, the bigger threat to our children are cuts to WIC and SNAP, not trace contaminants in baby formula.
Quick question that I haven’t been able to fully understand- the FDA sets inorganic arsenic safety threshold in infant rice cereal at 100ppb, but in water at 10ppb. No limit set by FDA for formula specifically at this time. I realize the EU level is 20ppb so we’ve been using that - and since EU uses more hazard based risk assessments this limit can be considered a safe number to go by.
Formula isn’t water, but it isn’t just rice cereal either- but if they tested dry formula powder, why aren’t we using the “rice cereal” ppb threshold? Just to be extra safe with the EU’s is this where the 20ppb limit? Extra safe is fine- just more curious about this I guess 😊
What's being ignored is the major pollutant and contaminant found in infant formula: Fluoride. No, there is not much fluoride in infant formula itself. That was removed as much as possible in 1980 by infant formula manufacturers. The big fluoride dose comes from preparing powdered infant formula with fluoridated tap water. There is very little fluoride in liquid ready to feed formula, but that costs about double and is less convenient, so it's not used as much. There is only a tiny amount of fluoride in breast milk even if the mother is drinking fluoridated water. That should say something to public health, but they don't want to be reminded of that.
You can sell bottled water with added fluoride and include a health claim that it might reduce tooth decay. But the FDA says you can't make that health claim for infants. No marketing allowed that says fluoridated bottled water is good for infants. That's because infants 0-6 months of age don't have any erupted teeth. They get no topical benefit from fluoride, and no benefit at all according to the CDC and everybody else. But if powdered infant formula plus fluoridated tap water is their main source of nutrition then they do get a fluorosis risk which is admitted by the CDC. So it's an all risk for no reward situation for these infants. And now there is a neurotoxic risk to unborn babies and young children, but that is unthinkable to fluoride polluting industries and public health leaders with their fluoridation program. So that risk is being ignored.
These infants get a huge dose of fluoride in terms of body weight, often putting them over the safe upper intake level. It's the highest fluoride intake of any age group. Meanwhile breast fed infants get the lowest fluoride intake compared to any other age group.
You might think public health would be interested in informing parents and pediatricians about this risk to infants, but think again. They want to suppress, minimize, bury, and ignore the proper advice as much as possible. The proper advice is to use non-fluoridated water when preparing powdered infant formula.
But there is a problem with the proper advice. It can cast doubt on fluoridation in general and fluoridation in much the U.S. can be a political issue. Voters can start and stop fluoridation with referendums. So it's been decided to have young infants continue to be heavily overdosed with fluoride for NO benefit, and give them a fluorosis risk. But there IS a benefit to fluoride polluting industries and the public perception of fluoridation. That is obviously more important.
-Don't let your kids swallow their toothpaste - that's a fluorosis risk. Tell them to spit it out.
-Don't put a whole stripe of toothpaste on the toothbrush like in the old days. Use a pea sized dab. Kids might swallow it. Fluorosis risk.
-For infants and very young children, use just a smear of toothpaste because they likely will swallow it. Fluorosis risk when more toothpaste is used.
- A pea sized amount of toothpaste has about .25mg of fluoride. Kids should spit that out. But a glass of fluoridated water also has .25mg of fluoride. Kids should drink that.
-Reduce the water fluoridation level 2 times since 1950 just to reduce fluorosis risk.
-EPA regulations require public notice if natural fluoride is above 2ppm in tap water to prevent nasty looking severe dental fluorosis which is an adverse health effect. The national fluoridation level in the U.S. is now 0.07ppm, not that much lower.
But when it comes to this particular fluorosis risk, a top fluoride scientist in the U.S. says don't inform parents because it's only going produce the common mild dental fluorosis. And that might not cause embarrassment because the spots and streaks might not be not the visible front teeth. But of course mild fluorosis can be disfiguring in many cases. This scientist supports fluoridation completely, that's how he gets grants.
There is a lot more evidence public health does not want parents and pediatricians to become aware of the proper advice. More than half of U.S children now have some form of dental fluorosis.
Thank you for putting into perspective a controversial topic. I would like to expand upon what your article hinted at towards the end. The important issues facing us now are not things like bottle versus breast feeding or even contaminated formula. A baby from an upper middle class household may or may not score a point higher on their SATs if they are breast fed, but in the grand scheme of things that will not matter. When we look at infant mortality rates in high income nations, we perform poorly. The reason why other nations do so much better than we do is because of access to appropriate resources like safe water, nutritious food, housing, access to healthcare, etc. As a country we need to focus on bigger issues that affect all of society. As the authors suggested, the bigger threat to our children are cuts to WIC and SNAP, not trace contaminants in baby formula.
Thank you thank you!!!
Quick question that I haven’t been able to fully understand- the FDA sets inorganic arsenic safety threshold in infant rice cereal at 100ppb, but in water at 10ppb. No limit set by FDA for formula specifically at this time. I realize the EU level is 20ppb so we’ve been using that - and since EU uses more hazard based risk assessments this limit can be considered a safe number to go by.
Formula isn’t water, but it isn’t just rice cereal either- but if they tested dry formula powder, why aren’t we using the “rice cereal” ppb threshold? Just to be extra safe with the EU’s is this where the 20ppb limit? Extra safe is fine- just more curious about this I guess 😊
What's being ignored is the major pollutant and contaminant found in infant formula: Fluoride. No, there is not much fluoride in infant formula itself. That was removed as much as possible in 1980 by infant formula manufacturers. The big fluoride dose comes from preparing powdered infant formula with fluoridated tap water. There is very little fluoride in liquid ready to feed formula, but that costs about double and is less convenient, so it's not used as much. There is only a tiny amount of fluoride in breast milk even if the mother is drinking fluoridated water. That should say something to public health, but they don't want to be reminded of that.
You can sell bottled water with added fluoride and include a health claim that it might reduce tooth decay. But the FDA says you can't make that health claim for infants. No marketing allowed that says fluoridated bottled water is good for infants. That's because infants 0-6 months of age don't have any erupted teeth. They get no topical benefit from fluoride, and no benefit at all according to the CDC and everybody else. But if powdered infant formula plus fluoridated tap water is their main source of nutrition then they do get a fluorosis risk which is admitted by the CDC. So it's an all risk for no reward situation for these infants. And now there is a neurotoxic risk to unborn babies and young children, but that is unthinkable to fluoride polluting industries and public health leaders with their fluoridation program. So that risk is being ignored.
These infants get a huge dose of fluoride in terms of body weight, often putting them over the safe upper intake level. It's the highest fluoride intake of any age group. Meanwhile breast fed infants get the lowest fluoride intake compared to any other age group.
You might think public health would be interested in informing parents and pediatricians about this risk to infants, but think again. They want to suppress, minimize, bury, and ignore the proper advice as much as possible. The proper advice is to use non-fluoridated water when preparing powdered infant formula.
But there is a problem with the proper advice. It can cast doubt on fluoridation in general and fluoridation in much the U.S. can be a political issue. Voters can start and stop fluoridation with referendums. So it's been decided to have young infants continue to be heavily overdosed with fluoride for NO benefit, and give them a fluorosis risk. But there IS a benefit to fluoride polluting industries and the public perception of fluoridation. That is obviously more important.
-Don't let your kids swallow their toothpaste - that's a fluorosis risk. Tell them to spit it out.
-Don't put a whole stripe of toothpaste on the toothbrush like in the old days. Use a pea sized dab. Kids might swallow it. Fluorosis risk.
-For infants and very young children, use just a smear of toothpaste because they likely will swallow it. Fluorosis risk when more toothpaste is used.
- A pea sized amount of toothpaste has about .25mg of fluoride. Kids should spit that out. But a glass of fluoridated water also has .25mg of fluoride. Kids should drink that.
-Reduce the water fluoridation level 2 times since 1950 just to reduce fluorosis risk.
-EPA regulations require public notice if natural fluoride is above 2ppm in tap water to prevent nasty looking severe dental fluorosis which is an adverse health effect. The national fluoridation level in the U.S. is now 0.07ppm, not that much lower.
But when it comes to this particular fluorosis risk, a top fluoride scientist in the U.S. says don't inform parents because it's only going produce the common mild dental fluorosis. And that might not cause embarrassment because the spots and streaks might not be not the visible front teeth. But of course mild fluorosis can be disfiguring in many cases. This scientist supports fluoridation completely, that's how he gets grants.
There is a lot more evidence public health does not want parents and pediatricians to become aware of the proper advice. More than half of U.S children now have some form of dental fluorosis.