A ramble from early October mentioned in passing the FDA guidelines for melamine in foods. Surprise, surprise—they’ve tweaked them again!
In that original post, I cited a Washington Post article regarding the guidelines. For reader convenience, I’ll quote the first three paragraphs of that article, emphasis mine:
With the Chinese milk products-melamine scandal generating fresh headlines, U.S. health officials on Friday unveiled what they consider acceptable levels of contamination with the industrial chemical.
The bottom line: No amount of melamine is safe in infant formula.
For all other foods, only amounts less than 2.5 parts per million are risk free, U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials said.
"For infant formula, we don't have sufficient information to be able to establish a level below which we have no concern," said Dr. Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. "For food other than infant formula, we do have sufficient information that we can establish what our levels of public health concern are."
The FDA apparently now has enough information [or is that arm-twisting by the Chinese?] and has set a “safe” level of melamine for infant formula:The U.S. Food and Drug Administration defended the safety of infant formula sold in the United States on Friday despite tests that found the chemical melamine in one brand and a related compound in another.
The amounts found are far less than levels found in infant formula in China earlier this year and "do not raise public health concerns," said Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. "The domestic supply of infant formula is safe."
FDA tests found "very low levels" of the industrial chemical melamine in Nestle's Good Start Supreme with Iron formula, Sundlof said during a conference call. Low levels of cyanuric acid were found in Bristol-Myers Squibb unit Mead Johnson's Enfamil Lipil with Iron.
The agency said it had determined that levels of melamine or one of its related compounds, alone, below 1 part per million in infant formula were not a concern.
Well, the FDA may not be concerned at that level of contamination in its infant herd, but after learning how melamine and cyanuric acid killed all those pets and Chinese infants (the Reuters article linked above includes a good summary), I would not willingly take that risk with a child. How long do these substances stay in the body? Is there a chance of accretion with repeated ingestion? What about when a child transitions from formula to adult food, which has higher acceptable levels of pois– melamine and cyanuric acid in them? I haven’t seen these issues addressed.
How can there be any trust left in this agency? It seems obvious to me that its foremost concerns are corporate profits and smooth relationships with offshore suppliers, rather than individual safety. I strongly encourage any woman reading this for whom it might become an issue, please investigate breastfeeding. After watching my mother and others mix up formula and tote around all the supplies for the process, I decided if I ever became a mother I’d breastfeed instead, if only for the convenience of it. That’s exactly what I did for both snolfs, and don’t regret one bit of it.
Relatedly, a warning for all diabetics regarding heavy (whipping) cream: I’ve noticed that a lot of the agribusiness suppliers are adding dextrose to it now, in addition to other thickeners. If you consume a lot of cream within a short time, you may wish to monitor your glucose levels a little more closely afterward.
Feeding infants
Isn't it amazing how infants managed to get fed, for many thousands of years, without chemical formulas?
Sunni is so right. Breast feeding is ideal. If you cannot breastfeed, for whatever reason, get the next best thing which is fresh goat's milk. Either get a milking goat (or two or three - they're addicting) or buy the fresh milk from a local neighbor who has them. Commercial goat's milk must be heated and treated like any other in the stores, of course. That would be a third and much poorer choice, but still light years better than any chemical "formula." Just read the formula label and see all the chemicals they contain. In addition, most are based on soy, which you might want to investigate carefully before feeding to your precious infant.
no shit
Hate to be self-righteous because there are women out there who cannot physically breastfeed but how can anyone choose not to breast feed?
I know, I know, I've heard all the reasons before. "The father will feel rejected", "They're for sex!", "That's gross", etc....
This is actually a very good issue to discuss among libertarians. You must do what's good for you otherwise no one around you benefits. But what about breast feeding? If you feel uncomfortable, undecided, pressured, or scared and use the "I have to do what's right for me" mantra where does the life you're responsible for come on your priority list? Yes, you become involved in another social contract when you have your baby, but that baby doesn't have any way first of all to respond to the contract in the first place, doesn't have any input into the creation of the conract, and cannot negotiate the contract until many years after.
So isn't it the adults responsibility to act in the best interest of this new person who is helpless, and provide him with the best nourishment and parenting an infant can receive- through breast feeding?
As you can see, I am very passionate about the subject. I can see how women who are raised in a culture which usues naked breasts to sell lingerie, beer, ciggarettes, motorcycles, feel hat it would be perverse and lewd to put their sweet little baby to their breast.
But when all the professional medical organizations (governmental or not) tell you that it is in fact the best way to feed infants, why are there still doubts and taboo?
(Now it's time for me to take a deep breath and disconnect from the internet...)
Sorry (kind of) for hitting that nerve ...
You raise some excellent points, Polka, so I’ll be uncharacteristically brief in response.
That is true—but what I wonder most about those women is how many of them chose to destroy that capability via breast enhancement surgery. Aside from that group, there are some who think they cannot breastfeed for varying reasons, but probably could if they’d try, or get some help from a lactation specialist.
That’s the one I don’t understand. We’re mammals—that’s how mammals feed their young.
And breastfeeding turns out to have both short– and long–term benefits for both mother and infant: a classic win-win scenario.
Honestly, I didn’t think there’d be much “in it” for me; I chose to breastfeed primarily because of the benefits to my beloved snolfs. But it turned out to be deeply rewarding for me as well as them; and now I couldn’t recommend breastfeeding more highly.
Another excuse
The most common reason for not breastfeeding I have heard is "It hurts".
Hmmm.
Without getting into “TMI” territory, I’ve heard that most from women who haven’t tried it, or haven’t given it enough time for their nipples to toughen up. It certainly is a different feeling—and for some women it can be sexually stimulating which may be problematic for them, but it really shouldn’t hurt if everything is normal and healthy and working the way that it should.
tough
Actually there is no medical need for the nipples to toughen up as long as the latch position is correct but this is where all the problems come from, and the remarks "It hurts". The baby isn't positioned at the breast correctly, pulls on the wrong part of the breast the mother hurst, the baby isn't getting any milk, switch to formula.
It is amazing how little technical knowledge about nursing there is among the immediate medical personel in ob wards. I can't tell you how many times I've heard of women giving up of nursing after they were coerced to produce a bottle of breastmilk hours after the infant was born. This is clearly impossible since a couple of days after the birth there is no breastmilk to speak of! It's just collostrum and very little of it to begin with.
Recently I've learned that the newborn's stomach doesn't strech for the first 24 hours after birth. It is the size of a marble. So it wouldn't take in more than naturally produced by the mother anyway. But the new mothers are still treated to the "lactation terror".
I think the situation is changing a bit however, especially in the big cities. And the WIC program strongly recommends nursing and provides all sorts of info for low-income moms.
So I suppose the awareness is growing but really what stands in the way of nursing becoming less of a taboo is the culture.
Funny how the environmental aspect doesn't get people more excited- I mean fromula is sold in cans and plastic containers. It all needs to be recycled and, as you pointed out in the article, contaminates the formula. Breastmilk comes in the ultimately "clean and reusable" container.