Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PeanutSalsa t1_j3sb9t8 wrote

Why are these baby food manufacturing companies putting heavy metals in baby food they manufacture?

1

Jfish033 t1_j3se84o wrote

They aren't. Lead is in soil, its a naturally occurring element. Its on the periodic table. Anything that grows in soil leeches up SUPER DUPER small amounts of lead. 15 ppb is literally if you got 1 billion pieces of sand 15 of them are lead. A billion is a big number bigger then most people can imagine. These people are ridiculously trying to scare more people.

This literally forces the manufactures to not use fruits/vegitables in their food. Which leads to even more processed unhealthy foods because someone is sueing someone over something. I think most people would want their babies eating healthy foods instead of processed to death foods to avoid a rational amount of lead.

3

DerHeinzW t1_j3sfozz wrote

So what are the safe levels, and are they exceeded here or not? I’m aware that there may be trace amount of heavy metals in even (or especially) the most natural food, but I’m also aware that some circumstances in manufacturing lead to levels that are decidedly over that.

1

Jfish033 t1_j3tapvd wrote

This article did exactly what they wanted. It got you scared for no reason. Your safe. Your kid will have less lead exposure then you did and be just as dumb.

3

trippiler t1_j3slius wrote

Well according to the article, a safe level of inorganic arsenic is 100ppb according to the FDA and zero of the baby foods they tested exceeded that.

I'd also like to point out that heavy metals are natural, and whether a food product is allowed to be sold as 'natural' has no bearing on the amount of heavy metals present.

2

DerHeinzW t1_j3smfbf wrote

> Well according to the article, a safe level of inorganic arsenic is 100ppb according to the FDA and zero of the baby foods they tested exceeded that.

Thank you, finally something substantial to start going by. Now two questions: Is what the FDA says consensus among the scientific community, and what about e.g. lead and cadmium?

> I'd also like to point out that heavy metals are natural, and whether a food product is allowed to be sold as 'natural' has no bearing on the amount of heavy metals present.

I understand, and I don‘t care. Whether it is considered „natural“ or not, whether it comes from soil or from anywhere else, has no bearing on the development of a brain. The only thing I care about is whether the levels are safe or not. However it got to that level: If it’s safe, good. If not, then it’s bad, and measures have to be taken.

1

trippiler t1_j3sp90b wrote

You can check what levels are allowed for various foods in Europe here which tend to be on the conservative side.

At the moment, research does not seem to be strong. For example, according to the quoted source:

> We systematically reviewed relevant studies published through December 30, 2018 and identified 14 studies on iAs and 37 studies on Pb exposure and their respective associations with ASD. Among them, 8 (53.3%) and 19 (51.3%) studies reported a positive association for iAs and Pb, respectively, and none reported a sole inverse association.

Even though the article says there is "consistent evidence supporting a link between early exposure to the heavy metal and a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder".

1

bloomberglaw OP t1_j3sdeyc wrote

The issue is complex and multifaceted. One aspect of the problem with baby foods is that heavy metals can wind up in foods before they're even processed by manufacturers. One example we note in the story is inorganic arsenic, which rice can absorb naturally as it grows in water. The presence of these metals in the environment is an issue the FDA has said it's taking into account as it develops action levels for metals in baby foods.

--Celine Castronuovo

1